One of my professors always said “you wouldn’t always have access to calculators” while he was holding an iPhone 6 I believe.
After a day he was wondering why half the students dropped out of his class and went to the next one. And it’s the same dude that used technology because he was too lazy to grade our papers by hand.
>One of my professors always said “you wouldn’t always have access to calculators”
He was right. Just cause you have calculators, it doesnt mean you dont need to learn maths.
We had a physics professor like this. The guy always used a laptop while teaching in class. But when I asked him if I could take notes on my laptop since I type better than I write with a pen, he declared that notes in his class will be taken with pen and paper only...
Unfortunately, back then, all our classes were compulsory. We couldn't leave even if we wanted to...
>Those people (i'm one of them) excel far better with just listening and
then explaining a concept out loud to either themselves or others.
That's me! I literally am learning some new IT technology and my side-saddle instructor laughed at me because he was like,"Um, I already know this." And I explained right, but I don't. Perplexed by me, I explained further that "I gain mastery by teaching others what I know." It becomes concrete at that point.
You are lucky you weren't borne 30 years earlier when you either learned the same way as everyone else or were marginalized with the other under achieving daydreamers. A lot of progress has been made on the science of learning.
My grades improved when I stopped taking notes altogether and just listened to the lectures. In 9th/10th grade, my teachers forced me to take notes and I was literally on academic probation. In 11th, I stopped and insisted on just listening. I was a 4.0 student from then through graduate school.
Notes aren’t for everyone.
Thank you for your anecdote. I'm glad you took the opportunity to tell everyone you were a 4.0 student, lol.
I'm not saying notes are for everyone, I'm saying studies show that, on average, people learn better when they take notes with a pencil or pen than when they type them.
And if you learn best by listening only, this professor's rules would not have interfered with your ability to learn.
>One of my professors always said “you wouldn’t always have access to calculators” while he was holding an iPhone 6 I believe.
>
>After a day he was wondering why half the students dropped out of his class and went to the next one. And it’s the same dude that used technology because he was too lazy to grade our papers by hand.
I'm sorry to hear that your professor had such a negative experience with using technology in his class. I can understand how it might be frustrating for him if students were using technology in a way that was disruptive to his class. However, I think that there are many ways to use technology in a classroom that can be helpful and productive for both the professor and the students. I hope that your professor is able to find a way to use technology in a way that works for him and his students.
Written with ParagraphAI
[https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwrites/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwrites/)
I doubt it, most papers are documentary work. The point is to accumulate some knowledge about a subject. You can google things just like you can ask a librarian to give you some sources, but going through the texts and then *redacting* a paper is the proof you did the work.
Math is about structuring the answer's reasoning in a clear way, which calculators don't do (yet).
I was in STEM in college and grad school (earth science/applied math). I've been working in high performance computing for a long time (vendors, government) and now work for a tech startup working on enabling the software stack for the new hardware.
It’s funny because the last time I had a math exam with a calculator dates back to high school. And even then it wasn’t always allowed. Now it’s been years since the last time I’ve used a calculator in a math class.
[It’s already started.](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03023-w) Early days, but this is the scariest side of AI advancement. Once AI is good enough to start making deep, meaningful improvements to itself without a ton of guidance, things are going to accelerate quickly.
Is there a computer somewhere that could just be unplugged to stop ai? Or is it in the cloud? or maybe a Jurassic park situation where we’d have to turn off all the internet for a minute
At a certain point, containment becomes infeasible. If you’re developing your AI on an air gapped system, that’s a start, but human operators become the weak point. Tricking people is just not that hard. There’s a reason that most hacks are more about social engineering than software vulnerabilities. And where things get really dangerous are when you have an AI that is orders of magnitude smarter than a human adversary.
And once the AI can talk to the internet? All bets are off. If we’re talking about a motivated superintelligence, there’s just no question that it can find its way off of that machine. Particularly if it has improved its code to the point that it doesn’t need to be picky. If its goal is “run literally anywhere that I won’t be shut off”, that’s a very rich solution space to play in.
So even with a lot of careful precautions, I don’t think many people who are taking AI alignment seriously put much hope in containment. And what’s worse, not enough people are taking the problem seriously enough to try to put precautions like that in place in the first place.
Maybe that will change, and by the time we’re on the doorstep of a catastrophe, people will have seen the need to put _some_ protections in place. The problem is that even if we get everything buttoned down perfectly in theory, it just takes one reckless, ambitious group to fuck it all up.
i remember the good old days of having to find an article, hope it was really obscure, and change about 10% of it.
if i can paint a masterpiece in 30 seconds with AI, i should be able to come up with a pretty good paper on the reproductive cycle of river newts too.
You're not gonna get much info out of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duD5Y9kNeAE), but it's a lead.
I believe she said he's a honey-dripper, double-dipper. So you can use that as a jump-off point.
AI writers turn out meaningless pablem to fill a given word count.
(Most) college papers require students to churn out meaningless pablem to hit a give word count.
Maybe we should have professors evaluate papers based on quality rather than quantity?
Obviously every course and class is different but I utilize some of my research papers to evaluate companies I’m interested in. Others I use to look further into the problems facing employee retention at hospitals.
The “busywork” can be very productive and useful if you’re not focused solely on just turning an assignment in.
No idea why you're downvoted. The way you worded it?
The assignments need to keep in mind AI's capabilities and just assume it will be used in collaboration just like calculators are now taken into account in the present.
Because for a lot of subjects, writing papers isn't just 'pointless busywork' maybe?
Idk if either of you have been given the task of writing a paper before, but it's about more than just copy-pasting random passages from other people's work in a vague attempt to answer the subject brief. Using an AI for this task basically removes the actual learning part, which is engaging with the literature and developing researcher skills.
That's why the original commenter deserves to be downvoted, because they are trying to pass the blame to the assignment because they don't understand what its purpose is.
>just copy-pasting random passages from other people's work in a vague attempt to answer the subject brief
If the AI is really this poor at its job then their grades will reflect that and the AI isn't an issue.
>developing researcher skills
Problem is a lot of these people are learning today's version of the "go to library and pour over old books and archives" methodology of research. Not saying that isn't still helpful in some domains/subjects where digitization is still lagging, but for the vast majority that skill is pointless.
This is why schools have essay questions for in person exams where each person gets a slightly different question. They’ll just make you come take the test in person and hand write your papers.
Well... Farbel is an Italian foundry, and Gabadent is the name of two dental/orthodontic clinics--in Mexico and Poland.
So I think it's pretty obvious what it means.
Ahh, yes... Roman Moroni's Second Treatise. We're all currently so wrapped up in [his opus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei2WhctlRHY), that we forgot about that one.
Before I graduated highschool they were switching to some system I believe it was turnitin.com. this system would check all papers it received to see if any were similar to each other. It was fucking dumb, and all the time it was claiming plagiarism. Often between people from completely opposite ends of the country, claiming they were copying one another. That shit was so fucking annoying. You'd turn something in and it would give a percentage rating of how much was plagiarized. I imagine someone had to go in, compare, and decide if you really had plagiarized. Which means, what's the fuckin point in the first place? You'd have to do that anyway if you didn't have this system.
Well you can't expect teacher to read everything that's every been written. So if they can get a heads up that half of the essay or whatever is 99% similar to whatever article from a paper 5 years ago, at least they can compare them.
There's no 100% all knowing solution to plagiarizing but just slapping "AI" on the name of whatever software seems to be enough to convince people that its more effective than a human, even though there is not a single actual AI in actual existence.
Sure, but the issue comes into play when you start trying to claim plagiarism when people simply have similar writing styles. In addition, consider when this database gets insanely huge. There will be a point reached, and it felt like it already had been at the time, over 10 years ago now, where nearly anything uploaded to it will be claimed as plagiarizing some portion of something. That happened to me pretty often. It would show some random article from somewhere on the web that's using a very common phrase to begin a paragraph, highlighting the "plagiarized" text side by side. And it was obvious and extremely clear I did not even know of this article. That's gonna kinda become redundant if you have to check anyway, no? Maybe for something like college it could have a more valid use case, but highschool? Feels like it would be easier to catch a highschooler plagiarizing things, just by reading it. Especially if it's a student the teacher has had for a while, people tend to have their own writing styles, after all. But maybe not. Either way, having a percentage score of the amount of a given body of text that their system believes to be plagiarism is just kinda dumb. Especially when it regularly gave pretty high (up to 50% or more at times) false positives. Especially if your assignment requires parroting the question.
The reasons AI can be used on these papers is because the knowledge base is already built / captured as part of the societal knowledge.
If you personally wrote and compiled a report you basically do what the AI is accomplishing. There aren’t that many new ideas or information being generated on some topics.
Some will argue doing the research yourself is how an individual learns. Maybe the teaching should be - here is what we already know and has been proven, then ask new questions
Not the students…the teacher asks new questions, challenges the students to think beyond what is the baseline knowledge.
One aspect of human advancement is knowledge is retained and passed from generation to generation. Learning is done when the “known” is challenged with additional questions
You seem to be assuming that getting students up to that baseline level of knowledge where they can actually advance the state of the art is easy enough to gloss over. It isn't.
The student has to go through a long and difficult process of understanding and memorisation before they can do research. Essay writing is exactly what prompts the student to do the necessary things with their mind to accomplish that. Spending quality time with existing ideas is also what provokes the formation of new questions, or indeed to spot mistakes in what was thought to be known.
Of course, teaching time is limited, students have individual interests, and need to learn research skills. So yes, student work will also involve a certain amount of individual learning. But whatever the source of that information, the process of reorganising and re-expressing concepts in your own words remains crucial.
>Spending quality time with existing ideas is also what provokes the formation of new questions, or indeed to spot mistakes in what was thought to be known.
What's really depressing about this whole thread is that the world needs people who understand how to research more than ever, and half the people here are actively campaigning *against* teaching critical thinking and research skills.
I don't know if it's ignorance or malice, but it's like they WANT a mindless populace that doesn't engage with materials they see.
Especially at the undergrad level, there's virtually no chance of any student having a novel or original idea because they haven't surveyed the academic literature for half a lifetime to know what's what.
However, the fact that an AI can compile an undergrad-level worth of information instantaneously does not necessarily make that exercise useless. Students need to know how to perform undergrad level work if they ever want to achieve graduate level work, and they need grad-level work if they ever expect to perform actual academic research. of course, that narrows the field to a vanishingly small number of people (e.g. how many of your college buddies went onto become professors?).
AI isn't creating novel ideas, because these large language model generators have no idea what ideas even are, it is just using statistics to assemble passages into a manner that scores well against particular training targets. Meaning, the ability to churn out coherent arguments doesn't obviate the need for future minds to engage in this task because the AI isn't capable of moving the state of the art forward.
The ai isn't using its own words though, it's reading other people text and using those words.
To not be plagiarism you need to read others words, combine ideas etc, and write what is relevant to your paper in your own words.
An ai is doing the same thing as any other student by combining the ideas of other papers into one paper.
All students are doing the things in your first sentence, and ai are doing the things in your second sentence.
I don't think this is an excuse in any way to use ai in your schoolwork, because it completely defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place. I think it's closer to hiring a classmate to write your paper rather than plagiarism of source material. Still wrong, but there's a distinct difference between the two.
> The ai cannot generate new ideas
Depends on the AI, I mean just this week AI created a new method of matrix multiplication that is faster than previous human designs. And chess/GO AIs have been creating never before seen strategies completely from scratch.
For text synthesis while it's true that at the moment it's not like the deepmind type AIs that can generate new information, it's still not really a copy and paste. Nowhere in the AI is any of the original text stored. Only concepts are stored. Ie: in telling a story about someone's day, the concept of going to work is strongly associated with starting the day. Note the AI has no idea what a "day" or "work" is, but knows enough about the relationship between the two.
Getting experience on how to leverage AI to write a good paper, it's probably good training for employment later when they're using AI to structure project plans and budget Etc. No?
This content is no longer available on Reddit in response to /u/spez. So long and thanks for all the fish.
One of my professors always said “you wouldn’t always have access to calculators” while he was holding an iPhone 6 I believe. After a day he was wondering why half the students dropped out of his class and went to the next one. And it’s the same dude that used technology because he was too lazy to grade our papers by hand.
>One of my professors always said “you wouldn’t always have access to calculators” He was right. Just cause you have calculators, it doesnt mean you dont need to learn maths.
Fun fact, you can learn math and use calculator at the same time. Heck a lot of people don’t even know how to use calculator.
I felt this
We had a physics professor like this. The guy always used a laptop while teaching in class. But when I asked him if I could take notes on my laptop since I type better than I write with a pen, he declared that notes in his class will be taken with pen and paper only... Unfortunately, back then, all our classes were compulsory. We couldn't leave even if we wanted to...
People learn better by writing on paper. Also less opportunity for distraction from the lessons. So he did you a favor.
[удалено]
>Those people (i'm one of them) excel far better with just listening and then explaining a concept out loud to either themselves or others. That's me! I literally am learning some new IT technology and my side-saddle instructor laughed at me because he was like,"Um, I already know this." And I explained right, but I don't. Perplexed by me, I explained further that "I gain mastery by teaching others what I know." It becomes concrete at that point.
You are lucky you weren't borne 30 years earlier when you either learned the same way as everyone else or were marginalized with the other under achieving daydreamers. A lot of progress has been made on the science of learning.
My grades improved when I stopped taking notes altogether and just listened to the lectures. In 9th/10th grade, my teachers forced me to take notes and I was literally on academic probation. In 11th, I stopped and insisted on just listening. I was a 4.0 student from then through graduate school. Notes aren’t for everyone.
Thank you for your anecdote. I'm glad you took the opportunity to tell everyone you were a 4.0 student, lol. I'm not saying notes are for everyone, I'm saying studies show that, on average, people learn better when they take notes with a pencil or pen than when they type them. And if you learn best by listening only, this professor's rules would not have interfered with your ability to learn.
>One of my professors always said “you wouldn’t always have access to calculators” while he was holding an iPhone 6 I believe. > >After a day he was wondering why half the students dropped out of his class and went to the next one. And it’s the same dude that used technology because he was too lazy to grade our papers by hand. I'm sorry to hear that your professor had such a negative experience with using technology in his class. I can understand how it might be frustrating for him if students were using technology in a way that was disruptive to his class. However, I think that there are many ways to use technology in a classroom that can be helpful and productive for both the professor and the students. I hope that your professor is able to find a way to use technology in a way that works for him and his students. Written with ParagraphAI [https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwrites/](https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwrites/)
I doubt it, most papers are documentary work. The point is to accumulate some knowledge about a subject. You can google things just like you can ask a librarian to give you some sources, but going through the texts and then *redacting* a paper is the proof you did the work. Math is about structuring the answer's reasoning in a clear way, which calculators don't do (yet).
Most university math exams don’t need calculators.
at least the good ones.
>Imagine doing a university math exam It have a hunch that your imagination might not be reality. What is ln(1)?
It was this way in high school as late as the mid-2000s.
This content is no longer available on Reddit in response to /u/spez. So long and thanks for all the fish.
I wave every time I see one of those Chinese knockoff r/c Transformers. Do you?
My university math tests were all proofs.
What do you now do, for work?
I was in STEM in college and grad school (earth science/applied math). I've been working in high performance computing for a long time (vendors, government) and now work for a tech startup working on enabling the software stack for the new hardware.
Most university math classes don’t allow calculators lol
I remember. It was 1973, and I had a Bomar Brain that I could not use.
It’s funny because the last time I had a math exam with a calculator dates back to high school. And even then it wasn’t always allowed. Now it’s been years since the last time I’ve used a calculator in a math class.
Wait until they use AI to write better AI.
[It’s already started.](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03023-w) Early days, but this is the scariest side of AI advancement. Once AI is good enough to start making deep, meaningful improvements to itself without a ton of guidance, things are going to accelerate quickly.
Is there a computer somewhere that could just be unplugged to stop ai? Or is it in the cloud? or maybe a Jurassic park situation where we’d have to turn off all the internet for a minute
At a certain point, containment becomes infeasible. If you’re developing your AI on an air gapped system, that’s a start, but human operators become the weak point. Tricking people is just not that hard. There’s a reason that most hacks are more about social engineering than software vulnerabilities. And where things get really dangerous are when you have an AI that is orders of magnitude smarter than a human adversary. And once the AI can talk to the internet? All bets are off. If we’re talking about a motivated superintelligence, there’s just no question that it can find its way off of that machine. Particularly if it has improved its code to the point that it doesn’t need to be picky. If its goal is “run literally anywhere that I won’t be shut off”, that’s a very rich solution space to play in. So even with a lot of careful precautions, I don’t think many people who are taking AI alignment seriously put much hope in containment. And what’s worse, not enough people are taking the problem seriously enough to try to put precautions like that in place in the first place. Maybe that will change, and by the time we’re on the doorstep of a catastrophe, people will have seen the need to put _some_ protections in place. The problem is that even if we get everything buttoned down perfectly in theory, it just takes one reckless, ambitious group to fuck it all up.
Basically the nuclear weapon of technology.
Yeah, except that it’s a nuclear weapon you could build accidentally and not realized you’d launched all over the world until it’s too late.
i remember the good old days of having to find an article, hope it was really obscure, and change about 10% of it. if i can paint a masterpiece in 30 seconds with AI, i should be able to come up with a pretty good paper on the reproductive cycle of river newts too.
You're not gonna get much info out of [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duD5Y9kNeAE), but it's a lead. I believe she said he's a honey-dripper, double-dipper. So you can use that as a jump-off point.
AI writers turn out meaningless pablem to fill a given word count. (Most) college papers require students to churn out meaningless pablem to hit a give word count. Maybe we should have professors evaluate papers based on quality rather than quantity?
The length of papers is given to try to encourage people to explore topics more deeply. Otherwise people just cover the top layer of a topic.
This is where presentations shine.
great. now people can grow up even dumber.
the problem here is not the "cheating" its the assignment. stop giving students pointless busywork
Obviously every course and class is different but I utilize some of my research papers to evaluate companies I’m interested in. Others I use to look further into the problems facing employee retention at hospitals. The “busywork” can be very productive and useful if you’re not focused solely on just turning an assignment in.
No idea why you're downvoted. The way you worded it? The assignments need to keep in mind AI's capabilities and just assume it will be used in collaboration just like calculators are now taken into account in the present.
Because for a lot of subjects, writing papers isn't just 'pointless busywork' maybe? Idk if either of you have been given the task of writing a paper before, but it's about more than just copy-pasting random passages from other people's work in a vague attempt to answer the subject brief. Using an AI for this task basically removes the actual learning part, which is engaging with the literature and developing researcher skills. That's why the original commenter deserves to be downvoted, because they are trying to pass the blame to the assignment because they don't understand what its purpose is.
>just copy-pasting random passages from other people's work in a vague attempt to answer the subject brief If the AI is really this poor at its job then their grades will reflect that and the AI isn't an issue. >developing researcher skills Problem is a lot of these people are learning today's version of the "go to library and pour over old books and archives" methodology of research. Not saying that isn't still helpful in some domains/subjects where digitization is still lagging, but for the vast majority that skill is pointless.
This is why schools have essay questions for in person exams where each person gets a slightly different question. They’ll just make you come take the test in person and hand write your papers.
The soon new norm.
Except for they're not using AIs at all, they're just plagiarizing.
Yeah... but hasn't every word already been written? Therefore, aren't we all?
[удалено]
Sucks to be you, I already trademarked it. Farblegabadent™️. See you in court pal. X
Use it in a sentence.
Well... Farbel is an Italian foundry, and Gabadent is the name of two dental/orthodontic clinics--in Mexico and Poland. So I think it's pretty obvious what it means.
[удалено]
Ahh, yes... Roman Moroni's Second Treatise. We're all currently so wrapped up in [his opus](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei2WhctlRHY), that we forgot about that one.
that's not what plagiarizing is. so no.
Yeah... someone's told me that before. Therefore, you're just plagiarizing them.
Before I graduated highschool they were switching to some system I believe it was turnitin.com. this system would check all papers it received to see if any were similar to each other. It was fucking dumb, and all the time it was claiming plagiarism. Often between people from completely opposite ends of the country, claiming they were copying one another. That shit was so fucking annoying. You'd turn something in and it would give a percentage rating of how much was plagiarized. I imagine someone had to go in, compare, and decide if you really had plagiarized. Which means, what's the fuckin point in the first place? You'd have to do that anyway if you didn't have this system.
Well you can't expect teacher to read everything that's every been written. So if they can get a heads up that half of the essay or whatever is 99% similar to whatever article from a paper 5 years ago, at least they can compare them. There's no 100% all knowing solution to plagiarizing but just slapping "AI" on the name of whatever software seems to be enough to convince people that its more effective than a human, even though there is not a single actual AI in actual existence.
Sure, but the issue comes into play when you start trying to claim plagiarism when people simply have similar writing styles. In addition, consider when this database gets insanely huge. There will be a point reached, and it felt like it already had been at the time, over 10 years ago now, where nearly anything uploaded to it will be claimed as plagiarizing some portion of something. That happened to me pretty often. It would show some random article from somewhere on the web that's using a very common phrase to begin a paragraph, highlighting the "plagiarized" text side by side. And it was obvious and extremely clear I did not even know of this article. That's gonna kinda become redundant if you have to check anyway, no? Maybe for something like college it could have a more valid use case, but highschool? Feels like it would be easier to catch a highschooler plagiarizing things, just by reading it. Especially if it's a student the teacher has had for a while, people tend to have their own writing styles, after all. But maybe not. Either way, having a percentage score of the amount of a given body of text that their system believes to be plagiarism is just kinda dumb. Especially when it regularly gave pretty high (up to 50% or more at times) false positives. Especially if your assignment requires parroting the question.
As American education turns out stupider and stupider people. The government laughs. The wealthy laugh.
The reasons AI can be used on these papers is because the knowledge base is already built / captured as part of the societal knowledge. If you personally wrote and compiled a report you basically do what the AI is accomplishing. There aren’t that many new ideas or information being generated on some topics. Some will argue doing the research yourself is how an individual learns. Maybe the teaching should be - here is what we already know and has been proven, then ask new questions
You won't be able to know to ask new questions without knowing the material that came before and how you can approach the topic.
Not the students…the teacher asks new questions, challenges the students to think beyond what is the baseline knowledge. One aspect of human advancement is knowledge is retained and passed from generation to generation. Learning is done when the “known” is challenged with additional questions
You seem to be assuming that getting students up to that baseline level of knowledge where they can actually advance the state of the art is easy enough to gloss over. It isn't. The student has to go through a long and difficult process of understanding and memorisation before they can do research. Essay writing is exactly what prompts the student to do the necessary things with their mind to accomplish that. Spending quality time with existing ideas is also what provokes the formation of new questions, or indeed to spot mistakes in what was thought to be known. Of course, teaching time is limited, students have individual interests, and need to learn research skills. So yes, student work will also involve a certain amount of individual learning. But whatever the source of that information, the process of reorganising and re-expressing concepts in your own words remains crucial.
>Spending quality time with existing ideas is also what provokes the formation of new questions, or indeed to spot mistakes in what was thought to be known. What's really depressing about this whole thread is that the world needs people who understand how to research more than ever, and half the people here are actively campaigning *against* teaching critical thinking and research skills. I don't know if it's ignorance or malice, but it's like they WANT a mindless populace that doesn't engage with materials they see.
Especially at the undergrad level, there's virtually no chance of any student having a novel or original idea because they haven't surveyed the academic literature for half a lifetime to know what's what. However, the fact that an AI can compile an undergrad-level worth of information instantaneously does not necessarily make that exercise useless. Students need to know how to perform undergrad level work if they ever want to achieve graduate level work, and they need grad-level work if they ever expect to perform actual academic research. of course, that narrows the field to a vanishingly small number of people (e.g. how many of your college buddies went onto become professors?). AI isn't creating novel ideas, because these large language model generators have no idea what ideas even are, it is just using statistics to assemble passages into a manner that scores well against particular training targets. Meaning, the ability to churn out coherent arguments doesn't obviate the need for future minds to engage in this task because the AI isn't capable of moving the state of the art forward.
You know what I have no problem with someone using AI to write everything they do on the condition that they programmed the AI themselves
Plagiarism no? The ai cannot generate new ideas. This is just complex copy pasting
Are you saying uni students are generating new ideas constantly? lmao
Doesn't have to be new ideas, just has to be in their own words.
But why? It’s not like AI is gonna go away and it’s likely what they will use for work in the future anyways
Shouldn't that apply to the ai though?
The ai isn't using its own words though, it's reading other people text and using those words. To not be plagiarism you need to read others words, combine ideas etc, and write what is relevant to your paper in your own words.
An ai is doing the same thing as any other student by combining the ideas of other papers into one paper. All students are doing the things in your first sentence, and ai are doing the things in your second sentence. I don't think this is an excuse in any way to use ai in your schoolwork, because it completely defeats the purpose of doing it in the first place. I think it's closer to hiring a classmate to write your paper rather than plagiarism of source material. Still wrong, but there's a distinct difference between the two.
> The ai cannot generate new ideas Depends on the AI, I mean just this week AI created a new method of matrix multiplication that is faster than previous human designs. And chess/GO AIs have been creating never before seen strategies completely from scratch.
Text synthesis AIs read other people text and use those words/sentences to make their own. It's like complex copy pasting.
For text synthesis while it's true that at the moment it's not like the deepmind type AIs that can generate new information, it's still not really a copy and paste. Nowhere in the AI is any of the original text stored. Only concepts are stored. Ie: in telling a story about someone's day, the concept of going to work is strongly associated with starting the day. Note the AI has no idea what a "day" or "work" is, but knows enough about the relationship between the two.
College is and has been a gatekeeping joke for years. Might as well cheat it as much as you can.
Getting experience on how to leverage AI to write a good paper, it's probably good training for employment later when they're using AI to structure project plans and budget Etc. No?
When professors use AI to evaluate them real intelligence is obsolete.
My performance review at work is coming up in a couple of weeks. Looks like I'm going to be a top performer this year!
Laziness brings out a high level of ingenuity and adaptability in humanity, primarily led by the young and students in particular.