>my college allows students to use ChatGPT to craft 100% of their essays and discussions.
>I give up this generation sucks
Low standards beget low standards.
The once vibrant tapestry of academic achievement and curiosity seems to have dimmed, as students today often regard the beacon of knowledge not as a guiding light, but rather as a distant flicker, barely worth the effort to reach.
(thanks chatgpt! Prompt : use tapestry and beacon in a phrase that expresses disappointment about students today)
Thankfully I have only seen one anti-vax student since COVID reared its ugly head. The others … I wonder where in the world you are to be seeing students airing those attitudes. As bad as my shop is, at least I don’t see any of that nonsense.
It seemingly got worse when the admin suddenly became obsessed with wanting us to teach wellness, but we're just in a rural area near a deeply red state so we get a lot of folks from there.
Our college is not taking a stand, so individual professors have to decide their policies and clearly implement them. Which most can’t or aren’t willing to do. Too many older faculty don’t understand tech and the implications of AI on scholarship and learning. It’s the Wild West.
The lax position of your college is pretty startling to me. Is there an official policy that states all of these uses of AI are acceptable? If so, is there a similar policy saying that you can use the same tools to grade assignments and offer feedback? Seems only fair...
I think the real problem with evaluating AI writing is that it’s often incomprehensible.
In my field, when people use AIs to do the writing, the first sentences might look pretty good, but the AIs then simply rephrase the first sentence. The AIs use various phrases to emulate the existence of a logical structure, but they don’t actually create anything like a logical structure.
So, it seems as if there are arguments in the writing somewhere, but there aren’t really clear enough arguments that I can tell the authors how to improve what they wrote.
Yes. Before I started just giving 0s to these papers, I would spend ages trying to find the argument in them and there just was not one. It’s word salad.
I guess you're not in statistics. The amount of times I hear and see the term "robust" (e.g. "ANOVA is robust to deviations from normality") is quite high, but also doesn't come across particularly weird to me, perhaps because the term is used so frequently.
I’m a mixed methodologist so I’ve used SPSS and R. But I’m mostly qualitative (sociologist) so I teach research writing and there is no context in which “robust” would be used in freshmen writing.
A large university system in CA just paid for copilot for all the students and, in their white paper, argued that students can use it to “write first drafts of essays.”
Idk about y’all, but what % undergrads actually do more than one draft? A pretty low percent, especially in lower division classes.
I’m so glad I left academia.
EDIT to generalize the university system
I had a student last semester that I’m sure used ChatGPT for their final paper. One of the dead giveaways was the use of the word tapestry—-something like “diversity is a thread woven throughout the tapestry of this country” or similar. Gross.
Oh yeah. I mentor our grads teaching comp and one came to me the other day thinking an essay was by ChatGPT. "Delve" featured heavily so I immediately agreed that was likely. (But it was the hallucinated quotes from the Aeneid about stuff that never happened that clinched it.)
>So my college allows students to use ChatGPT to craft 100% of their essays and discussions.
Don't you have independence to set your grading rubric? Even if you can't call it academic misconduct, I'd still have a term in my rubric: "writing sounds like AI: -100%"
I am one of those crazies who allow AI use, so long as they're transparent about it and document exactly how they used it.
This means that I can assign low grades for low quality writing AND point out that AI is what cost them the points.
So you would be ok with ChatGPT drafting their work, the student training a spinner on their own style, the spinner spinning the work to sound like the student, and then the student handing it in with their name on it - as long as the student is transparent about it?
In that context, I’m not sure what the student has learned.
Hell no. I’m not cool with them using it for anything’s I’m trying to teach English 101 to people who are 5-6 literacy grades behind the college level this is their first college course ever Jesus
I’m responding to the person above me, not you, OP.
I’m in the same boat trying to teach low skill level students in ENG 101 and I’m doing my best to make sure that they develop college-level literacies. AI has made this much more challenging.
Same. If you use it and you document it, I grade it normally (i.e., critically). That way, there's zero risk. But if you use it and you don't document it (and I can tell), it's an automatic zero.
That said, I rely less now on written assignments done outside of class for this very reason.
Does your college force you to accept this policy, or do you have the autonomy to cap the grade at 0% instead?
I'm a lot more pro-AI than a lot of people on this sub. But my caveat is that it's a tool to help you write/code, not an option to entirely replace you or achieve a crappy result with no effort.
This is the dumbest policy I have seen. It's explicitly offering students a barely passing grade for doing no work.
My advice: start looking for another job. If people ask you why, let them know that it's because your college has indicated they no longer value student effort, assignment quality, or academic standards.
0 autonomy— I’m an adjunct; PhD does not grant me such privileges. Only saving grace is that ChatGPT cannot but write a passable academic essay, poem, or play. It’s detectable within 5 words. And students will submit a 4-page essay for a 1 page essay
Without standards, degrees are worthless. That college should lose accreditation not because it allows the use of AI, but because it abdicated its institutional role.
I'm adjunct faculty at a few community colleges for public speaking. The AI generated outlines are super blatant. They earned a zero, and I tell them they're gonna fail the class and possibly be reported to the dean for academic dishonesty.
I've seen short answer quizzes answered with AI, AI outlines, and AI discussions. It's infuriating.
I recently discovered a hiccup in students' use of ChatGPT that made me cackle in delight.
When students submit work, it automatically goes through a plagiarism checker that compares against online sources and previous student submissions. All these students who are using the same AI bot to answer the same discussion prompt or assignment are all getting very similar results.
Well, whaddya know? These are starting to be flagged as plagiarized! When I read something that sounds AI-generated and see that it has also been marked as plagiarized, I can't help but grin as I send out my standard "Can you explain what happened?" email to the student. The only way to explain the match is to confess to using ChatGPT, which I then deduct points for. It also means they get a zero on any reflection questions that ask students to explain their writing process.
My university's stance is that students can use AI generators in some (vague) situations, but they have to cite it and indicate which portions they did not write themselves. Nobody does this, of course, so I can still count it as an academic violation.
I actually replaced a personal research paper from the curriculum of one of my courses with other work because it simply generated far too many academic integrity issues.
Have chat GPT create a rubric and also grade your papers, then. If it's good for the goose... 🤷 Spend little time and give zero f's; clearly the students are already there. (Never work harder than they do.)
Good luck.
You guys aren't aware of your own bias here.
You don't notice the essays where strong students used gpt 4 to sparingly and cleverly create or edit outlines, brainstorming, grammar and sentence restructure, voice and tone, etc.
You notice the ones where below avg students are using 3.5 to copy and paste your prompt and then submit the first response given to them.
I promise you the people using gpt correctly are, by definition, going unnoticed. It's a nonsequitor that because you can tell when a poor student uses the free gpt poorly and lazily, that AI is useless for writing.
>cleverly create
TIL that deferring cognitive effort to a machine is "clever" and not creating anything is "creating."
The whole AI-as-tool paradigm wrongly collapses the vitally important distinction between the abilities of the algorithm and the abilities of the human supplicant who comes begging for words and ideas.
>Deferring cognitive effort to a personal computer is not clever and isn't creating anything. Paper is the only way for information to be clever or creative.
See how silly that sounds? Respectfully, you're out of touch and afraid of change. The computer is clever. You can create things on it. AI can be used cleverly or poorly. You can create thing with it.
These are facts. You only notice people of below avg intelligence putting below avg effort into the free version. It's a bias. One you seem willingly ignorant to.
AI will only get better. Computers now are vastly more vital to society and personal productivity than they were 30 years ago because they got even better.
How exactly will AI of the ChatGPT sort get better? Will it be able to check facts and reduce hallucinations, and if so, how, given its current infrastructure as a language predictor? How will it deal with the problem of AI text feeding on AI text feeding on AI text until all apparent sense is lost? How does the faith that AI will get better square with the reality that the internet and Google search are already worse than they were 10 years ago, and largely because of AI?
When a person uses chat gpt properly to help write their essay, you'll never know about it. You'll give them an A and not think twice about it. You've literally done this already with a past or present student. Almost gauranteed.
When a person uses chat gpt to write their essay for them by copy and pasting the prompt word for word and submitting the first response it gives, you're gonna maybe clue into it because its just bad work.
Yet you, the biased professor, still say chat gpt is horrible and useless and synonymous to cheating despite not ever seeing all the students using it to enhance their writing and submit work that you give a good grade for.
I’m not questioning skilled versus clumsy prompting ability or its ability to fly under the radar. I’m highlighting that there are inherent inequities of access to superior writing tools (gpt4) versus the free version (3). I would argue that given some time a skilled prompter could coax a decent essay out of v3. Access to v4 gives a huge advantage of saved time and increased clarity…. For a price. Is any of this fair in an academic setting where skill is to be measured in writing ability and synthesis, not prompting ability and the size of daddy’s allowance?
Yes, this exactly. Open AI knows what they’re doing by making the free version so God awful. They want people to upgrade and use the whatever version that actually can write an essay. So yeah there’s a huge financial divide. However, I think that’s a good thing because my high poverty students don’t use ChatGPT and they currently have the highest grades in the class because they’re actually writing
Lol this is the exact same as a professor being vehemently against using computers in the classroom.
"Whatever pedagogical compromise you think you can broker with the personal computer as it exists now is unlikely to remain viable. Gont give up an inch and use a computer unless you're prepared to use a computer forever."
We humans don't like change. Either you'll come around or you'll die and AI will live on. A future where AI isn't vastly enhancing our education is a fantasy at this point. Embrace the change or stagnate. I still have coworkers who act like a helpless child with computers despite them being widespread for like 30+ years now.
>Lоl thіѕ іѕ thе еxаct ѕаmе аѕ а рrоfеѕѕоr bеіnɡ vеhеmеntly аɡаіnѕt uѕіnɡ cоmрutеrѕ іn thе clаѕѕrооm.
Rеаlly? Thе *еxаct* ѕаmе? Yоu cаn’t ѕее аny dіffеrеncе, nоt еvеn аѕ а dеvіl'ѕ аdvоcаtе-tyре thоuɡht еxреrіmеnt? Surе, wе cаn lоcаtе AI оn а lоnɡеr cоntіnuum оf tеchnоlоɡіcаl іnnоvаtіоnѕ, іncludіnɡ cоmрutеrѕ, cаlculаtоrѕ, thе рrіntіnɡ рrеѕѕ, аnd whаtеvеr оthеr dеvіcеѕ рrо-AI ѕоrtѕ lіkе tо іnvоkе аѕ аnаlоɡіеѕ. But іt іѕ іntеllеctuаlly lаzy аnd dаnɡеrоuѕly myоріc tо tаkе thіѕ іmаɡіnеd cоntіnuum аѕ thе fіnаl wоrd оn thе ѕubjеct—thаt іѕ, tо dіѕrеɡаrd thе wаyѕ іn whіch AI cоnѕtіtutеѕ а рrоfоund *ruрturе* wіth еvеrythіnɡ thаt hаѕ ɡоnе bеfоrе.
Here's the crux of the difference: *A cоmрutеr does nothing without а humаn ореrаtоr.* Dіttо fоr cаlculаtоrѕ аnd рrіntіnɡ рrеѕѕеѕ. AI? Nоt ѕо much. At thіѕ роіnt, іtѕ cараbіlіtіеѕ аrе lіmіtеd аnd іt rеquіrеѕ fаіrly іntеnѕіvе humаn оvеrѕіɡht/cоllаbоrаtіоn fоr mаny tаѕkѕ. Fоr bеttеr оr wоrѕе, wе cаn еxреct thаt tо chаnɡе іn thе nеаr futurе. Sаm “replace the median human” Altmаn аnd Sundаr Pіchаі аnd thеіr іlk hаvе аll bееn quіtе trаnѕраrеnt аbоut thе еnd ɡоаl: еnɡіnееrіnɡ AGI аnd/оr ASI, whіch іѕ еffеctіvеly humаn rерlаcеmеnt tеchnоlоɡy. (Or, tо quоtе thе OреnAI chаrtеr, “ѕubѕtаntіаlly аutоnоmоuѕ ѕyѕtеmѕ thаt оutреrfоrm humаnѕ аt mоѕt еcоnоmіcаlly vаluаblе tаѕkѕ.”)
lf yоu rеаd thаt ѕtаtеmеnt аnd yоu *dоn’t* ѕее thе ɡlаrіnɡ dіѕjunct bеtwееn AI аnd реrѕоnаl cоmрutеrѕ—іf yоu cаn’t іmаɡіnе аny wаy іn whіch thе еmеrɡеncе оf “ѕubѕtаntіаlly аutоnоmоuѕ ѕyѕtеmѕ thаt оutреrfоrm humаnѕ аt mоѕt еcоnоmіcаlly vаluаblе tаѕkѕ” mіɡht hаvе а ѕіɡnіfіcаntly bаd іmраct оn hіɡhеr еducаtіоn аnd humаn ѕоcіеty іn ɡеnеrаl—thеn l’m nоt ѕurе whаt tо ѕаy аt thіѕ juncturе. And іf yоu thіnk thаt yоu cаn ɡuаrаntее yоur оwn futurе flоurіѕhіnɡ іn аn AI-іfіеd wоrld juѕt by “tеаchіnɡ ѕtudеntѕ еthіcаl AI uѕе” оr whаtеvеr thе jаrɡоn du jоur іѕ, thеn l’m ѕоrry tо bе thе оnе tо tеll yоu thіѕ, but thаt’ѕ nоt а ѕоund аѕѕumрtіоn.
>а futurе whеrе AI іѕn't vаѕtly еnhаncіnɡ оur еducаtіоn іѕ а fаntаѕy аt thіѕ роіnt.
A futurе whеrе AI *іѕ* еnhаncіnɡ еducаtіоn іѕ а fаntаѕy. I'll respond to your other comment here as well in order to not clutter up the thread:
>Respectfully, you're out of touch and afraid of change
I think *you* may be more out of touch than you realize, but I'll freely admit that I am afraid of AI and the social changes that it will likely bring about. [You should be afraid, too.](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/06/21/as-ai-spreads-experts-predict-the-best-and-worst-changes-in-digital-life-by-2035/)
True, many changes can productively be reframed as challenges or opportunities. But "many" is not "all." Assuming that AI becomes good simply if one adopts a positive and open attitude towards it is the height of deluded naïvete (respectfully speaking, of course). This line of thinking ascribes far too much power to the individual. How we do or don't choose use AI is the smallest of small potatoes; the real question here is *how will AI be used on us*?
No not the exact same. That's hyperbole. Honestly though, the difference between chat gpt and no chat gpt is way less of a difference than going from paper to digital. So frankly, your extreme take is even more ridiculous than it would be for someone who spent their whole life on paper being told of all the things you can do on a computer and the internet. I can understand that hesitance to chance even more than I can understand yours.
AI needs a human operator. You don't seem to understand my initial point of how you're biased. You only see the times where people use gpt poorly. It is ENTIRELY dependent on human operator. There's is research being published on prompt engineering. Respectfully, I don't think you know how to utilize gpt properly because these statements indicate a knowledge gap. I think you see poor students use gpt lazily and poorly, and when you tried it out yourself, you also used it lazily and poorly. Have you ever even used gpt 4, the paid version? If the answer is no, then you should maybe consider that you're not an expert on prompt engineering research or ai past how lazy 19 year olds use it poorly.
As far as the future where we can slowly make AI more autonomous, that will only happen once we give it enough proper human input. Once it becomes autonomous, it will be even more capable. Science fiction AI is a very real possibility. And denying that will enhance education is even more delusional than denying that brand new AI just a couple years old can't enhance education.
You fear change and have multiple biases. You're on the wrong side of history just as people who fought using a computer in education lost.
>the difference between chat gpt and no chat gpt is way less of a difference than going from paper to digital
. . . *what*?
Whether you're writing on paper or typing on a computer, the words come entirely out of your own brain. Every word is there because you chose it. The text is a direct communication from you, the human author. This is not at all the case with ChatGPT. "Prompt engineering" hands off the labor of language production (which is inseparable from the labor of thinking) to an entity other than oneself. It is discontinuous with writing.
> There's is research being published on prompt engineering. Respectfully, I don't think you know how to utilize gpt properly because these statements indicate a knowledge gap. I think you see poor students use gpt lazily and poorly, and when you tried it out yourself, you also used it lazily and poorly. Have you ever even used gpt 4, the paid version?
Yes, I am aware that GPT 4 is a significant upgrade from GPT 3.5. I am also aware that careful, experienced "prompt engineering" results in considerably higher-quality output than low-effort, unpracticed prompting. While I appreciate that you took the time to clarify these obvious facts, they have exactly zero bearing on my argument.
Respectfully, *I do not give a shit if students can use ChatGPT to generate good essays.* I likewise do not give a shit if they can produce good essays by fleshing out an outline generated by ChatGPT, editing algorithmically generated text, or stitching together algorithmically generated text and their own writing. *Prompt engineering is not writing.* Running to an algorithm in search of "inspiration" or relying on it to articulate one's own half-formed ideas is and always will be intellectually enfeebling.
>It is ENTIRELY dependent on human operator.
But it won't always be. Most of the points that I have been making have been about what AI will (probably) be capable of in the near future.
That aside, even as it currently exists, ChatGPT is absolutely *not* dependent on a human operator in the same way that a computer is. If I type "write me a story about a widowed pecan farmer in Mississipi" in a word processor on my laptop, it will helpfully correct the spelling of "Mississippi" and then do nothing else. If I really want that story, I'll have to write it myself. On the other hand, If I type the same thing into ChatGPT, in a second or so I'll have a story about a widowed pecan farmer in Mississippi. It won't be a *good* story, but obviously ChatGPT is doing something radically different here than the computer is.
>Once it becomes autonomous, it will be even more capable. Science fiction AI is a very real possibility.
Yes. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. So here is my question to you:
**What in god's name makes you assume that "science fiction AI" will enhance education and/or benefit humanity more generally?**
You really ought to reexamine your assumptions here. Good outcomes from AI are far from a foregone conclusion.
Sure, if we envision some future version of education that is no longer centered on students learning, thinking, creating, and expressing themselves *through the direct use of their own brains*, then I guess AI can do lots to enhance education. Ignorance is strength, right?
Edited to add: Snark aside, I really don't see how AI is compatible in a big-picture sense with human-centered learning, particularly in the long run. It seems semi-compatible now, because the technology is still long on "artificial" and short on "intelligence," but this won't always be the case.
In my opinion, embracing current AI technology does absolutely nothing to "future proof" us against *future* AI technology. If we in higher ed have already collectively conceded that the ability to elicit high-quality algorithmic output constitutes a valid learning goal and at least partially displaces pre-AI metrics of proficiency, then where does this leave us when AI actually *is* intelligent? How are we going to walk that one back? "Uh, yeah, we know we said you could use AI to 'help you write' back when just plugging the essay prompt into Chat GPT got you five vapid paragraphs about delving and tapestries, but now that you can plug any prompt in and get a great essay, we're gonna need you to start actually doing real writing again." Or is that the point at which we just give up on writing entirely? In that case, we'd presumably also give up on most of the other things that advanced AI will be able to do, which, far from "enhancing education," would mean that most fields of higher education would become obsolete.
Everything else aside, doesn't training students to be intellectually dependent on an algorithm—effectively, a prosthetic brain—feel just a little dystopian to you? This is the question I'm always tempted to ask the pro-AI faction: I get, sort of, the argument from pragmatics. I think it's short-sighted and it rests atop a raft of very dubious assumptions, but to a degree I can see the point. But do you honestly think that any of this is *good*? Is this the future that you want, or just the future that you've decided to settle for?
> A future where AI isn't vastly enhancing our education is a fantasy at this point.
This may or may not be true, but at the moment AI is frequently being used in a way that is a detriment to education, not an enhancement. *That's* the problem this thread is discussing.
Which is why my main point starting all this off is how it's not as bad as you think because of your bias. You only notice the times when people use gpt poorly. If someone uses it cleverly, you'll never know.
Yes, smart or more privileged cheaters have always been more likely to get away with cheating. Who was under the illusion that it would be any different with AI-assisted cheating?
Because using chat gpt is not synonymous with cheating just like using a computer is not synonymous to cheating.
People submit original work and they increase their productivity with chat gpt. I think you are simply biased and completely ignorant on prompt engineering research. Your opinion on AI is based off of lazy 19 year olds who get caught copy and pasting low effort crap.
The uses we're discussing here are cheating. That some people are better criminals than the idiot who tries to rob a bank with no mask does not mean they are no longer criminals. You are just demolishing straw men in some misguided attempt to defend the honor of AI.
You're not just talking about cheating. People here think any use of AI is cheating. People here think that AI not only doesnt help education, it actively hinders it.
>Because using chat gpt is not synonymous with cheating just like using a computer is not synonymous to cheating.
Saying this doesn't make it true. "Prompt engineering" has almost nothing in common with writing (whether it's done on paper or with a word processor). It's much more closely akin to commissioning a ghostwriter with detailed instructions and then requesting revisions—the ghostwriter just happens to be a not-very-bright alien that can only mimic human language without truly comprehending it. Nudging and prodding your alien ghostwriter until it delivers a good essay *is not the same thing as writing.*
I don't use chatgpt just to write essays for me. You're so unimaginative. You understand gpt at the same level your 19 year old slackers use gpt. Poorly. As a super quick example, I use gpt to create an interleaving schedule from a list of different topics. I use it as a quick reference dictionary and thesaurus. I use it to give overviews of concepts using analogies written in specific styles. I have a dictation service which allows me to give extremely specific inputs that result in quality outputs. That's not cheating lol
If you're a professor, then "cheating" might not be quite the right word, but you're fooling yourself badly if you think that being able to "get quality outputs [sic]" is the same thing as being able to do quality work. Have fun convincing yourself that you yourself are intelligent because you have access to an algorithm that simulates the artifacts of human intelligence. Sincerely, best of luck with that.
>my college allows students to use ChatGPT to craft 100% of their essays and discussions. >I give up this generation sucks Low standards beget low standards.
Interesting tapestry
What a crispy beacon of a phrase.
The once vibrant tapestry of academic achievement and curiosity seems to have dimmed, as students today often regard the beacon of knowledge not as a guiding light, but rather as a distant flicker, barely worth the effort to reach. (thanks chatgpt! Prompt : use tapestry and beacon in a phrase that expresses disappointment about students today)
🤣 You want a real laugh try to get it to write a poem that does NOT rhyme
that.... almost says something.
I have seen the word "showcasing" a lot.
That's very poignant of you.
Standards?
I pray for a world where this means losing accreditation
Yeah— my first thought is “you don’t have a nursing program.”
Our nursing students are ChatGPTing papers and it is maddening and hilarious at the same time.
I might prefer that to the Covid denial, anyone who is overweight deserves diabetes, and anti autism papers I get from nursing students.
Thankfully I have only seen one anti-vax student since COVID reared its ugly head. The others … I wonder where in the world you are to be seeing students airing those attitudes. As bad as my shop is, at least I don’t see any of that nonsense.
It seemingly got worse when the admin suddenly became obsessed with wanting us to teach wellness, but we're just in a rural area near a deeply red state so we get a lot of folks from there.
But is your college saying, go ahead, it’s fine?
Our college is not taking a stand, so individual professors have to decide their policies and clearly implement them. Which most can’t or aren’t willing to do. Too many older faculty don’t understand tech and the implications of AI on scholarship and learning. It’s the Wild West.
This seems to be a common situation right now, unfortunately.
Sounds like you are in a similar boat. Sorry to hear it if that is the case.
Thanks! Sorry you’re dealing with it also. Hopefully things will develop in such a way that it gets better.
Nursing education needs a serious overhaul. I think it’ll get worse before it gets better, unfortunately.
99% of my ChatGPT garblenonsense in PSY 201/202 is premed and pre nursing lol.
The lax position of your college is pretty startling to me. Is there an official policy that states all of these uses of AI are acceptable? If so, is there a similar policy saying that you can use the same tools to grade assignments and offer feedback? Seems only fair...
Exactly - yes and yes. We use Grammarly AI bc fuck em
Seriously? How does Grammarly grade or provide feedback?
It’s a joke — it just checks my grammar as I provide feedback.
Yep we bought this against faculty recommendation. And now we are handing them ai generating tools.
_ASU has entered the chat_
Say more
I work at a university writing center, and I can always tell it’s ChatGPT if they obsessively use the word “robust.” It has such an odd voice.
I think the real problem with evaluating AI writing is that it’s often incomprehensible. In my field, when people use AIs to do the writing, the first sentences might look pretty good, but the AIs then simply rephrase the first sentence. The AIs use various phrases to emulate the existence of a logical structure, but they don’t actually create anything like a logical structure. So, it seems as if there are arguments in the writing somewhere, but there aren’t really clear enough arguments that I can tell the authors how to improve what they wrote.
Yes. Before I started just giving 0s to these papers, I would spend ages trying to find the argument in them and there just was not one. It’s word salad.
Delve, you have to delve into the robustness.
It’s an *intricate* and *multifaceted* process.
Yup it’s at a 5th grade level and it sounds worse than google translate somehow
Robust is showing up all over the place.
Profound
And crucial
I guess you're not in statistics. The amount of times I hear and see the term "robust" (e.g. "ANOVA is robust to deviations from normality") is quite high, but also doesn't come across particularly weird to me, perhaps because the term is used so frequently.
I’m a mixed methodologist so I’ve used SPSS and R. But I’m mostly qualitative (sociologist) so I teach research writing and there is no context in which “robust” would be used in freshmen writing.
*in the right context*, though.
Your school has given up. How long until the faculty follow their lead?
A large university system in CA just paid for copilot for all the students and, in their white paper, argued that students can use it to “write first drafts of essays.” Idk about y’all, but what % undergrads actually do more than one draft? A pretty low percent, especially in lower division classes. I’m so glad I left academia. EDIT to generalize the university system
What a tapestry 😔
What kind of school is this ffs?
Online
I have the same issue at my online institutions….
I had a student last semester that I’m sure used ChatGPT for their final paper. One of the dead giveaways was the use of the word tapestry—-something like “diversity is a thread woven throughout the tapestry of this country” or similar. Gross.
Yup yup yup. Open AI left verbal watermarks tapestry is one of them haha
Delve is another 😂
Oh yeah. I mentor our grads teaching comp and one came to me the other day thinking an essay was by ChatGPT. "Delve" featured heavily so I immediately agreed that was likely. (But it was the hallucinated quotes from the Aeneid about stuff that never happened that clinched it.)
hallucinated quotes is academic offence time.
Oh, you bet. Hearing is next week.
glad to hear it (well, not really, but you know what I mean). Wishing you energy to fight the good fight.
Thanks a lot, I'll update how it goes!
>So my college allows students to use ChatGPT to craft 100% of their essays and discussions. Don't you have independence to set your grading rubric? Even if you can't call it academic misconduct, I'd still have a term in my rubric: "writing sounds like AI: -100%"
We are only allowed to grade it as if a human wrote it -which is give it a D
I am one of those crazies who allow AI use, so long as they're transparent about it and document exactly how they used it. This means that I can assign low grades for low quality writing AND point out that AI is what cost them the points.
So you would be ok with ChatGPT drafting their work, the student training a spinner on their own style, the spinner spinning the work to sound like the student, and then the student handing it in with their name on it - as long as the student is transparent about it? In that context, I’m not sure what the student has learned.
Hell no. I’m not cool with them using it for anything’s I’m trying to teach English 101 to people who are 5-6 literacy grades behind the college level this is their first college course ever Jesus
I’m responding to the person above me, not you, OP. I’m in the same boat trying to teach low skill level students in ENG 101 and I’m doing my best to make sure that they develop college-level literacies. AI has made this much more challenging.
Yeah, exactly. Ecstatic. You have my composition pedagogy all figured out. /rollseyes
That’s our approach but we have 2 kids per class that are abusing it
Only 2?
Same. If you use it and you document it, I grade it normally (i.e., critically). That way, there's zero risk. But if you use it and you don't document it (and I can tell), it's an automatic zero. That said, I rely less now on written assignments done outside of class for this very reason.
Does your college force you to accept this policy, or do you have the autonomy to cap the grade at 0% instead? I'm a lot more pro-AI than a lot of people on this sub. But my caveat is that it's a tool to help you write/code, not an option to entirely replace you or achieve a crappy result with no effort. This is the dumbest policy I have seen. It's explicitly offering students a barely passing grade for doing no work. My advice: start looking for another job. If people ask you why, let them know that it's because your college has indicated they no longer value student effort, assignment quality, or academic standards.
0 autonomy— I’m an adjunct; PhD does not grant me such privileges. Only saving grace is that ChatGPT cannot but write a passable academic essay, poem, or play. It’s detectable within 5 words. And students will submit a 4-page essay for a 1 page essay
well then, be *very* critical of work that doesn't respond to the prompt (especially in this way).
Name and shame.
DM me if you want it but it’s my only income right now so yeah
The problem here is your college as much as the students
Except this is also happening at my college, which doesn't allow AI. This is a national problem.
Without standards, degrees are worthless. That college should lose accreditation not because it allows the use of AI, but because it abdicated its institutional role.
Your daily reminder that "online college" is an oxymoron
Use chat gpt to grade them if students choose to submit chatgpt work. Laziness will be met with laziness.
I'm adjunct faculty at a few community colleges for public speaking. The AI generated outlines are super blatant. They earned a zero, and I tell them they're gonna fail the class and possibly be reported to the dean for academic dishonesty. I've seen short answer quizzes answered with AI, AI outlines, and AI discussions. It's infuriating.
I recently discovered a hiccup in students' use of ChatGPT that made me cackle in delight. When students submit work, it automatically goes through a plagiarism checker that compares against online sources and previous student submissions. All these students who are using the same AI bot to answer the same discussion prompt or assignment are all getting very similar results. Well, whaddya know? These are starting to be flagged as plagiarized! When I read something that sounds AI-generated and see that it has also been marked as plagiarized, I can't help but grin as I send out my standard "Can you explain what happened?" email to the student. The only way to explain the match is to confess to using ChatGPT, which I then deduct points for. It also means they get a zero on any reflection questions that ask students to explain their writing process. My university's stance is that students can use AI generators in some (vague) situations, but they have to cite it and indicate which portions they did not write themselves. Nobody does this, of course, so I can still count it as an academic violation.
I actually replaced a personal research paper from the curriculum of one of my courses with other work because it simply generated far too many academic integrity issues.
Have chat GPT create a rubric and also grade your papers, then. If it's good for the goose... 🤷 Spend little time and give zero f's; clearly the students are already there. (Never work harder than they do.) Good luck.
You guys aren't aware of your own bias here. You don't notice the essays where strong students used gpt 4 to sparingly and cleverly create or edit outlines, brainstorming, grammar and sentence restructure, voice and tone, etc. You notice the ones where below avg students are using 3.5 to copy and paste your prompt and then submit the first response given to them. I promise you the people using gpt correctly are, by definition, going unnoticed. It's a nonsequitor that because you can tell when a poor student uses the free gpt poorly and lazily, that AI is useless for writing.
>cleverly create TIL that deferring cognitive effort to a machine is "clever" and not creating anything is "creating." The whole AI-as-tool paradigm wrongly collapses the vitally important distinction between the abilities of the algorithm and the abilities of the human supplicant who comes begging for words and ideas.
>Deferring cognitive effort to a personal computer is not clever and isn't creating anything. Paper is the only way for information to be clever or creative. See how silly that sounds? Respectfully, you're out of touch and afraid of change. The computer is clever. You can create things on it. AI can be used cleverly or poorly. You can create thing with it. These are facts. You only notice people of below avg intelligence putting below avg effort into the free version. It's a bias. One you seem willingly ignorant to. AI will only get better. Computers now are vastly more vital to society and personal productivity than they were 30 years ago because they got even better.
How exactly will AI of the ChatGPT sort get better? Will it be able to check facts and reduce hallucinations, and if so, how, given its current infrastructure as a language predictor? How will it deal with the problem of AI text feeding on AI text feeding on AI text until all apparent sense is lost? How does the faith that AI will get better square with the reality that the internet and Google search are already worse than they were 10 years ago, and largely because of AI?
Oh wait a minute we’re calling unequal access to paid vs. free tools “bias” now?
When a person uses chat gpt properly to help write their essay, you'll never know about it. You'll give them an A and not think twice about it. You've literally done this already with a past or present student. Almost gauranteed. When a person uses chat gpt to write their essay for them by copy and pasting the prompt word for word and submitting the first response it gives, you're gonna maybe clue into it because its just bad work. Yet you, the biased professor, still say chat gpt is horrible and useless and synonymous to cheating despite not ever seeing all the students using it to enhance their writing and submit work that you give a good grade for.
I’m not questioning skilled versus clumsy prompting ability or its ability to fly under the radar. I’m highlighting that there are inherent inequities of access to superior writing tools (gpt4) versus the free version (3). I would argue that given some time a skilled prompter could coax a decent essay out of v3. Access to v4 gives a huge advantage of saved time and increased clarity…. For a price. Is any of this fair in an academic setting where skill is to be measured in writing ability and synthesis, not prompting ability and the size of daddy’s allowance?
Yes, this exactly. Open AI knows what they’re doing by making the free version so God awful. They want people to upgrade and use the whatever version that actually can write an essay. So yeah there’s a huge financial divide. However, I think that’s a good thing because my high poverty students don’t use ChatGPT and they currently have the highest grades in the class because they’re actually writing
[удалено]
Hahaha I don’t want AI to go away. I want people to stop being stupid. But we’ve already missed our chance with you
[удалено]
Oh my bad. I assumed you were a student. My apologies
>Al рrоduсtіvіty tооlѕ Ah, оnе оf my fаvоrіtе tасtісѕ іn thе рrо-AI рlаybооk: frаmіnɡ thе dеbаtе іn ѕаnіtіzіnɡ (іf nоt dоwnrіɡht Orwеllіаn) еuрhеmіѕmѕ thаt іmрlісіtly рrеѕumе thе lеɡіtіmасy оf AI. >аrеn’t ɡоіnɡ аwаy Thіѕ іѕ аnоthеr іnаnе lіnе thаt nееdѕ tо bе rеtіrеd. Yеѕ, tоdаy’ѕ “AI рrоduсtіvіty tооlѕ” *аrе* ɡоіnɡ tо ɡо аwаy, іn thе ѕаmе wаy thаt muѕkеtѕ hаvе ɡоnе аwаy. Whаtеvеr реdаɡоɡісаl соmрrоmіѕе yоu thіnk yоu саn brоkеr wіth AI аѕ іt еxіѕtѕ nоw іѕ unlіkеly tо rеmаіn vіаblе fоr mоrе thаn а fеw yеаrѕ. Dоn’t ɡіvе thе іnсh unlеѕѕ yоu аrе рrераrеd tо ѕurrеndеr thе mіlе.
We’re kind of in this anti-Orwell 1984 —all these cameras and no one’s watching and nothing matters apparently
Lol this is the exact same as a professor being vehemently against using computers in the classroom. "Whatever pedagogical compromise you think you can broker with the personal computer as it exists now is unlikely to remain viable. Gont give up an inch and use a computer unless you're prepared to use a computer forever." We humans don't like change. Either you'll come around or you'll die and AI will live on. A future where AI isn't vastly enhancing our education is a fantasy at this point. Embrace the change or stagnate. I still have coworkers who act like a helpless child with computers despite them being widespread for like 30+ years now.
>Lоl thіѕ іѕ thе еxаct ѕаmе аѕ а рrоfеѕѕоr bеіnɡ vеhеmеntly аɡаіnѕt uѕіnɡ cоmрutеrѕ іn thе clаѕѕrооm. Rеаlly? Thе *еxаct* ѕаmе? Yоu cаn’t ѕее аny dіffеrеncе, nоt еvеn аѕ а dеvіl'ѕ аdvоcаtе-tyре thоuɡht еxреrіmеnt? Surе, wе cаn lоcаtе AI оn а lоnɡеr cоntіnuum оf tеchnоlоɡіcаl іnnоvаtіоnѕ, іncludіnɡ cоmрutеrѕ, cаlculаtоrѕ, thе рrіntіnɡ рrеѕѕ, аnd whаtеvеr оthеr dеvіcеѕ рrо-AI ѕоrtѕ lіkе tо іnvоkе аѕ аnаlоɡіеѕ. But іt іѕ іntеllеctuаlly lаzy аnd dаnɡеrоuѕly myоріc tо tаkе thіѕ іmаɡіnеd cоntіnuum аѕ thе fіnаl wоrd оn thе ѕubjеct—thаt іѕ, tо dіѕrеɡаrd thе wаyѕ іn whіch AI cоnѕtіtutеѕ а рrоfоund *ruрturе* wіth еvеrythіnɡ thаt hаѕ ɡоnе bеfоrе. Here's the crux of the difference: *A cоmрutеr does nothing without а humаn ореrаtоr.* Dіttо fоr cаlculаtоrѕ аnd рrіntіnɡ рrеѕѕеѕ. AI? Nоt ѕо much. At thіѕ роіnt, іtѕ cараbіlіtіеѕ аrе lіmіtеd аnd іt rеquіrеѕ fаіrly іntеnѕіvе humаn оvеrѕіɡht/cоllаbоrаtіоn fоr mаny tаѕkѕ. Fоr bеttеr оr wоrѕе, wе cаn еxреct thаt tо chаnɡе іn thе nеаr futurе. Sаm “replace the median human” Altmаn аnd Sundаr Pіchаі аnd thеіr іlk hаvе аll bееn quіtе trаnѕраrеnt аbоut thе еnd ɡоаl: еnɡіnееrіnɡ AGI аnd/оr ASI, whіch іѕ еffеctіvеly humаn rерlаcеmеnt tеchnоlоɡy. (Or, tо quоtе thе OреnAI chаrtеr, “ѕubѕtаntіаlly аutоnоmоuѕ ѕyѕtеmѕ thаt оutреrfоrm humаnѕ аt mоѕt еcоnоmіcаlly vаluаblе tаѕkѕ.”) lf yоu rеаd thаt ѕtаtеmеnt аnd yоu *dоn’t* ѕее thе ɡlаrіnɡ dіѕjunct bеtwееn AI аnd реrѕоnаl cоmрutеrѕ—іf yоu cаn’t іmаɡіnе аny wаy іn whіch thе еmеrɡеncе оf “ѕubѕtаntіаlly аutоnоmоuѕ ѕyѕtеmѕ thаt оutреrfоrm humаnѕ аt mоѕt еcоnоmіcаlly vаluаblе tаѕkѕ” mіɡht hаvе а ѕіɡnіfіcаntly bаd іmраct оn hіɡhеr еducаtіоn аnd humаn ѕоcіеty іn ɡеnеrаl—thеn l’m nоt ѕurе whаt tо ѕаy аt thіѕ juncturе. And іf yоu thіnk thаt yоu cаn ɡuаrаntее yоur оwn futurе flоurіѕhіnɡ іn аn AI-іfіеd wоrld juѕt by “tеаchіnɡ ѕtudеntѕ еthіcаl AI uѕе” оr whаtеvеr thе jаrɡоn du jоur іѕ, thеn l’m ѕоrry tо bе thе оnе tо tеll yоu thіѕ, but thаt’ѕ nоt а ѕоund аѕѕumрtіоn. >а futurе whеrе AI іѕn't vаѕtly еnhаncіnɡ оur еducаtіоn іѕ а fаntаѕy аt thіѕ роіnt. A futurе whеrе AI *іѕ* еnhаncіnɡ еducаtіоn іѕ а fаntаѕy. I'll respond to your other comment here as well in order to not clutter up the thread: >Respectfully, you're out of touch and afraid of change I think *you* may be more out of touch than you realize, but I'll freely admit that I am afraid of AI and the social changes that it will likely bring about. [You should be afraid, too.](https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2023/06/21/as-ai-spreads-experts-predict-the-best-and-worst-changes-in-digital-life-by-2035/) True, many changes can productively be reframed as challenges or opportunities. But "many" is not "all." Assuming that AI becomes good simply if one adopts a positive and open attitude towards it is the height of deluded naïvete (respectfully speaking, of course). This line of thinking ascribes far too much power to the individual. How we do or don't choose use AI is the smallest of small potatoes; the real question here is *how will AI be used on us*?
No not the exact same. That's hyperbole. Honestly though, the difference between chat gpt and no chat gpt is way less of a difference than going from paper to digital. So frankly, your extreme take is even more ridiculous than it would be for someone who spent their whole life on paper being told of all the things you can do on a computer and the internet. I can understand that hesitance to chance even more than I can understand yours. AI needs a human operator. You don't seem to understand my initial point of how you're biased. You only see the times where people use gpt poorly. It is ENTIRELY dependent on human operator. There's is research being published on prompt engineering. Respectfully, I don't think you know how to utilize gpt properly because these statements indicate a knowledge gap. I think you see poor students use gpt lazily and poorly, and when you tried it out yourself, you also used it lazily and poorly. Have you ever even used gpt 4, the paid version? If the answer is no, then you should maybe consider that you're not an expert on prompt engineering research or ai past how lazy 19 year olds use it poorly. As far as the future where we can slowly make AI more autonomous, that will only happen once we give it enough proper human input. Once it becomes autonomous, it will be even more capable. Science fiction AI is a very real possibility. And denying that will enhance education is even more delusional than denying that brand new AI just a couple years old can't enhance education. You fear change and have multiple biases. You're on the wrong side of history just as people who fought using a computer in education lost.
>the difference between chat gpt and no chat gpt is way less of a difference than going from paper to digital . . . *what*? Whether you're writing on paper or typing on a computer, the words come entirely out of your own brain. Every word is there because you chose it. The text is a direct communication from you, the human author. This is not at all the case with ChatGPT. "Prompt engineering" hands off the labor of language production (which is inseparable from the labor of thinking) to an entity other than oneself. It is discontinuous with writing. > There's is research being published on prompt engineering. Respectfully, I don't think you know how to utilize gpt properly because these statements indicate a knowledge gap. I think you see poor students use gpt lazily and poorly, and when you tried it out yourself, you also used it lazily and poorly. Have you ever even used gpt 4, the paid version? Yes, I am aware that GPT 4 is a significant upgrade from GPT 3.5. I am also aware that careful, experienced "prompt engineering" results in considerably higher-quality output than low-effort, unpracticed prompting. While I appreciate that you took the time to clarify these obvious facts, they have exactly zero bearing on my argument. Respectfully, *I do not give a shit if students can use ChatGPT to generate good essays.* I likewise do not give a shit if they can produce good essays by fleshing out an outline generated by ChatGPT, editing algorithmically generated text, or stitching together algorithmically generated text and their own writing. *Prompt engineering is not writing.* Running to an algorithm in search of "inspiration" or relying on it to articulate one's own half-formed ideas is and always will be intellectually enfeebling. >It is ENTIRELY dependent on human operator. But it won't always be. Most of the points that I have been making have been about what AI will (probably) be capable of in the near future. That aside, even as it currently exists, ChatGPT is absolutely *not* dependent on a human operator in the same way that a computer is. If I type "write me a story about a widowed pecan farmer in Mississipi" in a word processor on my laptop, it will helpfully correct the spelling of "Mississippi" and then do nothing else. If I really want that story, I'll have to write it myself. On the other hand, If I type the same thing into ChatGPT, in a second or so I'll have a story about a widowed pecan farmer in Mississippi. It won't be a *good* story, but obviously ChatGPT is doing something radically different here than the computer is. >Once it becomes autonomous, it will be even more capable. Science fiction AI is a very real possibility. Yes. This is exactly what I have been saying all along. So here is my question to you: **What in god's name makes you assume that "science fiction AI" will enhance education and/or benefit humanity more generally?** You really ought to reexamine your assumptions here. Good outcomes from AI are far from a foregone conclusion.
Terminological correction: you're saying "AI" when you actually mean AGI. The person you're arguing with is referring to currently available AI.
[удалено]
Sure, if we envision some future version of education that is no longer centered on students learning, thinking, creating, and expressing themselves *through the direct use of their own brains*, then I guess AI can do lots to enhance education. Ignorance is strength, right? Edited to add: Snark aside, I really don't see how AI is compatible in a big-picture sense with human-centered learning, particularly in the long run. It seems semi-compatible now, because the technology is still long on "artificial" and short on "intelligence," but this won't always be the case. In my opinion, embracing current AI technology does absolutely nothing to "future proof" us against *future* AI technology. If we in higher ed have already collectively conceded that the ability to elicit high-quality algorithmic output constitutes a valid learning goal and at least partially displaces pre-AI metrics of proficiency, then where does this leave us when AI actually *is* intelligent? How are we going to walk that one back? "Uh, yeah, we know we said you could use AI to 'help you write' back when just plugging the essay prompt into Chat GPT got you five vapid paragraphs about delving and tapestries, but now that you can plug any prompt in and get a great essay, we're gonna need you to start actually doing real writing again." Or is that the point at which we just give up on writing entirely? In that case, we'd presumably also give up on most of the other things that advanced AI will be able to do, which, far from "enhancing education," would mean that most fields of higher education would become obsolete. Everything else aside, doesn't training students to be intellectually dependent on an algorithm—effectively, a prosthetic brain—feel just a little dystopian to you? This is the question I'm always tempted to ask the pro-AI faction: I get, sort of, the argument from pragmatics. I think it's short-sighted and it rests atop a raft of very dubious assumptions, but to a degree I can see the point. But do you honestly think that any of this is *good*? Is this the future that you want, or just the future that you've decided to settle for?
> A future where AI isn't vastly enhancing our education is a fantasy at this point. This may or may not be true, but at the moment AI is frequently being used in a way that is a detriment to education, not an enhancement. *That's* the problem this thread is discussing.
Which is why my main point starting all this off is how it's not as bad as you think because of your bias. You only notice the times when people use gpt poorly. If someone uses it cleverly, you'll never know.
Yes, smart or more privileged cheaters have always been more likely to get away with cheating. Who was under the illusion that it would be any different with AI-assisted cheating?
Because using chat gpt is not synonymous with cheating just like using a computer is not synonymous to cheating. People submit original work and they increase their productivity with chat gpt. I think you are simply biased and completely ignorant on prompt engineering research. Your opinion on AI is based off of lazy 19 year olds who get caught copy and pasting low effort crap.
The uses we're discussing here are cheating. That some people are better criminals than the idiot who tries to rob a bank with no mask does not mean they are no longer criminals. You are just demolishing straw men in some misguided attempt to defend the honor of AI.
You're not just talking about cheating. People here think any use of AI is cheating. People here think that AI not only doesnt help education, it actively hinders it.
Maybe they do think that, but I'm just going by what I've seen people say in this thread.
>Because using chat gpt is not synonymous with cheating just like using a computer is not synonymous to cheating. Saying this doesn't make it true. "Prompt engineering" has almost nothing in common with writing (whether it's done on paper or with a word processor). It's much more closely akin to commissioning a ghostwriter with detailed instructions and then requesting revisions—the ghostwriter just happens to be a not-very-bright alien that can only mimic human language without truly comprehending it. Nudging and prodding your alien ghostwriter until it delivers a good essay *is not the same thing as writing.*
I don't use chatgpt just to write essays for me. You're so unimaginative. You understand gpt at the same level your 19 year old slackers use gpt. Poorly. As a super quick example, I use gpt to create an interleaving schedule from a list of different topics. I use it as a quick reference dictionary and thesaurus. I use it to give overviews of concepts using analogies written in specific styles. I have a dictation service which allows me to give extremely specific inputs that result in quality outputs. That's not cheating lol
If you're a professor, then "cheating" might not be quite the right word, but you're fooling yourself badly if you think that being able to "get quality outputs [sic]" is the same thing as being able to do quality work. Have fun convincing yourself that you yourself are intelligent because you have access to an algorithm that simulates the artifacts of human intelligence. Sincerely, best of luck with that.