Training students to prove they're not robots is pushing them to use more AI
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
How about going back to the old system where, apart from experimental lab work, nothing is graded until the end of the term?
All weekly assignments should just be considered prep for one exam at the end of the term where the student has an opportunity to demonstrate mastery of the course's subject matter. They can prepare as they wish, use AI, and even cheat on the homework, but there will be a revelation at the end of the term.
That final test can be proctored, monitored, audited to ensure that whatever words are used are indeed the student's own words. The resulting grade depends on that, and that alone.
The approach of continuous assessment, which to me always seemed suspect and ripe for abuse, was completely broken by the AI tools that are now available.
Do you only learn when you’re being graded?
As a general rule when changing complex systems, you sacrifice what you aren’t trying to optimize. If you make a random change to a car without consideration for gas mileage it’s very likely to reduce gas mileage.
(The other side of that contract is, kids are not merely attending schools to learn, but to earn a degree that carries some degree of prestige)
The OP was about students dumbing down their own work to avoid AI detectors ratting them out. That seems like a big loss.
A grade, on a single proctored test, is a crude metric, but at least it would be a brutally fair one.
There are things you learn from spending several days structuring a 20-page argument that you will not learn (and cannot assess) from oral examination or a 5-paragraph essay written in a blue book.
That knowledge will show up in the blue book vis-a-vis the other exam candidates.
For example, the life-changingly-well-designed newswriting course I took in college assigned every single student a different story to spend several weeks reporting out so that we wouldn't all be out harassing the same poor people for interviews.
I would prefer not to be confrontational here, but I am having a hard time imagining that you've deeply considered the pedagogy of how to teach and evaluate students on squishy skills like this.
Knowing a bunch of facts about something is a world apart from structuring a compelling in-depth argument about it.
Data does not support your sense.
Most students do not have good time management skills, usually because they have no models and/or have not been taught these skills.
Furthermore, continuous feedback, whether graded or not, has been found to be more effective than one-shot feedback.
Evaluation and assessment is a complex topic towards which many people (not necessarily you) want to take an overly simplified approach.
There are trade offs for any system that is chosen. The organizations providing the grades have to decide what their priorities are (e.g., time, accuracy, etc.).
I love this idea. And if a student is having a really bad day, or their dog just died, or they have bad cramps, or they have a hard time dealing with the intense stress of your entire grade being decided in one exam... well, those loser students can just fuck right off.
Accommodations are part of the fabric already. It doesn't seem inconceivable that we couldn't deal with them in exceptional circumstances in a similar way to how it's done today.
... well then, why not use those same protections (proctoring, monitoring, auditing) in continuous examination?
Accommodations are real and necessary, but applied at the end.
(Experimental sciences are an exception)
If they did not do this, they failed the exam on communication with other people.
In addition, we are not always able to make decisions in ideal conditions. We need to learn how to solve problems under pressure, in emotional turmoil, and when we are not feeling well.
A better approach is to rethink what we assess and how we assess it. Research shows that the design of assessments plays an important role in academic integrity. Assignments that require original thinking and regular engagement can reduce incentives to cheat and improve learning outcomes.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22119...
If the only remedy is monitored end of term exams, so be it.
If you take away the credit given for homework, you still can give feedback, while removing any incentive to cheat.
2. I had a prof. that didn't require homework be done. He would give out "practice fun" and would gladly sit down, give feedback and 1:1 time to those who completed it, or tried. He also pointed out that it was rare to pass the exams for students who didn't do "practice fun". Most people did the work.
It leads me to believe - from my own experience too - that students generally aren't stupid, and will gladly do the work if there is a point. Plenty of homework is pure busywork though, even at the college level.
At some point in college when I was thinking about law school, I learned about the Socratic Method. It was weird because up to that point in college, I just pretty much flew under the radar and took exams. It was far different than high school, and I realized my high school did pretty much use the Socratic Method. It wasn't as intense as law school, but every class, maybe 4-5 people would we grilled by teachers. This was called "participation."
Shy? Anxiety? Yeah, that didn't matter. Your number would eventually be up a few times a month. You had to prepare and know the assignments, otherwise your grade would suffer and public humiliation was a real thing.
If your goal is for them to know the entire material, then it makes sense to test their knowledge of the entire course in one exam, which also allows them to study at their own pace and order. If someone is unable to pass the exam or retain all the information, then consider whether you need such professionals.
Of course, creating good exams is difficult, but you have to do that either way.
Sure, it requires more resources, but it shouldn't require much more:
- We've had multiple exams before AI, and I don't see how AI makes it any harder. Obviously these are closed-book
- Schools should already be banning phones in class (and colleges have insane tuitions, they can afford more exams)
- The students who go out of their way to cheat - as long as they're a minority, let them. Why not? Either they'll fail later in life, or they didn't need to learn the material because they're pathological fakers (even if you won and forced them to learn the material, they'd probably still fake their way out of using it). Then, I doubt you need much proctoring to ensure that most students don't cheat, because most of the smart students are generally smart enough to know that actually learning the material is probably important (or if the material is probably not important, it doesn't matter if the students all cheat...)
Meanwhile, downsides of one exam:
- Disadvantages students who get overly stressed about unrecoverable exams, or have a particularly bad day on the exam
- Many students will blow off the (ungraded) assignments and put off actually learning until the end
- Less graded content (especially if the exam isn't overly long, which would disadvantage some students)
Homework was assigned but not graded.
Periodic tests is the way to go.
I hated courses where the final was more than 30%. Forget 100%.
Personally, I felt that the drive to automate the parts of the professors' workloads that mattered (i.e. teaching and grading and evaluation and research), only so that they can be given work that matters less the more they do it (i.e. publishing slightly different flavors of the same paper, to meet KPIs), was oddly perverse.
The multiple-choice test and the puzzle-solving test and really any standardized test can be exploited by any group that is sufficiently organized. This is also true in corporate interviewing where corporations think (or pretend) that they are interviewing an individual, whereas they are actually interviewing a _network_ of candidates who share details about the interviewers and the questions. I know people who got rejected in spite of getting all the interview questions correct (the theory is that nobody can do that well, so they must have had help from previously rejected/accepted candidates).
The word "trust" shares a root with the word "tree" and "truth" and "druid". Most exams and interviews are trying to speed-run trust-building (note that "verification" is from the latin word that means "true"). If trust and truth are analogous to "tree", then we are trying to speed-run the growth of a tree -- much like the orange tree, in the film, _The Illusionist_. And like the orange tree, it is a near-complete illusion, a ritual meant to keep the legal department and HR department happy.
The LLMs have simply made the corruption of academia accessible to _all_ students with an internet connection (EDIT: and instantaneous and cheap, unlike a human writer).
There has never been a shortcut to building trust. One cannot LLM their way into being a (metaphorical) druid.
I do not look forward to the Voight-Kampff tests that will come to dominate all aspects of online and asynchronous human interaction.
Note that, short of homework/classwork that _can't_ be gamed by an LLM (for some fundamental reason), even the high-quality honest students will be forced to cheat, so as to not be eclipsed by the actual low-quality cheating students[0].
I imagine that we may end up wrapping around to live in-person dialectics, as were standard in the time of Socrates and Parmenides[1]. If so, this should be fun.
[0]: If left unaddressed, we may see a bimodal distribution of great and terrible students graduating college, with those in between dropping out. If college is an attempt to categorize and rank a population, this would be a major fault in that mechanism.
[1]: Not to the exclusion of the other kinds of tests, writing is still important, critical even. But as a kind of verification-step, that should inform how much the academic community should trust the writing (I can imagine that all the writers here are experiencing stage-fright as they are reading these words).
At-home coding projects, writing essays, etc also exercise different skiils than you can test for in a 2 hour written exam. It's unfortunate that due to rampant AI cheating, we can no longer reward the students who put in the work and develop these skills.
If someone knows 80% of the topics on an exam like the back of their hand and doesn't know the other 20% they shouldn't get a B, they should pass the subjects they know and be asked to retake and relearn the subjects they don't know.
When people know they can make mistakes and the result is not a perpetual black mark on their record (any grade not an A) but they are given the chance to improve and demonstrate this improvement then perhaps they might be more willing to admit and understand mistakes instead of cheating.
I was lucky in that my education last millennium was almost entirely make-or-break final exams, which suit me well. I’m bad at routinely completing little assignments, but shine under crazy pressure. Other students are the opposite.
We’ve tried both kinds over time and trend. Neither is perfect.
What will likely happen if you have to force all evaluation into one exam is you will get a Leetcode style programming quiz, that tests something, except that something is only barely connected to your daily job after college. Or you end up with something like a multiple choice exam that is again disconnected from your work and can be gamed by studying just for the exam.
This exact line of argument that we should just abolish coursework keeps coming up on HN. Courseworks exist for a purpose. You can't just throw it away and pretend it never did anything useful.
If your school uses software to detect AI writing, that's a problem with the quality of your school. The people choosing that software are too stupid to be running a school. The software isn't going to get any better.
The problem isn't that AI detection doesn't work. State of the art in this field is pretty solid. The only issue is that it's probabilistic, so it sometimes fails, and when it does, we have nothing else in situations where you actually want to know if someone put in the work.
So what are you proposing, exactly? That we run a large-scale experiment of "let's see what happens if children don't actually need to learn to do thinking and writing on their own"? The reality is that without some form of compulsion, most kids would rather play video games / scroll through TikTok all day. Or that we move to a vastly more resource-intensive model where every kid is given personalized instruction and watched 1:1?
That's what fortunetellers do. The problem isn't guessing correctly about AI content in writing. The problem is false positives. That's what puts it in the same category is predictive policing scam software. And fortunetelling.
False positive and false negative rates are non-zero, as with almost anything, but the tools are pretty good. I encourage you to give them a try. Pangram is a good state-of-the-art choice and you can try it for free. They also publish evals and other data about their approach.
I have given them a try and can confirm the exact opposite. Plenty of others have given them tries and have confirmed the exact opposite.
Regardless, the “better for a hundred guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to hang” principle applies here.
This is armchair philosophy when pragmatism and problem solving serve better.
Fundamentals - Teaching is expensive, and we don't have enough teachers.
Verifying if someone has the skills is difficult.
Given the shortage of teachers, and the difficulty of verification, we ways to bridge the gap.
The first step is always going to be to spend more on education, especially in underserved areas.
The new options we have with LLMs is to increase the rate of testing, and test out the benefits of low stakes testing at scale.
Punishing innocent people out of negligence is not pragmatism, and refusing to tolerate such punishment is not armchair philosophy.
I think you're basing this off a fundamental misunderstanding of what these detectors look for. LLMs generate human-like text, but they also generate roughly the same style and content every time for a given prompt, modulo some small amount of nondeterminism. In essence, they are a very predictable human. Ask Gemini or ChatGPT ten times in a row to write an essay about why AI is awesome, and it will probably strike about the same tone every single time, with similar syntax, idioms, etc.
This is what these tools detect: the default output of "hey ChatGPT, write me a school essay about X". This can be evaded with clever prompting to assume a different writing personality, but there's only so much evasion you can do without making the text weird in other ways.
This is true only for base models, but few people would use a base model for writing assignments. Output from models trained to be assistants is, so far, decently recognizable.
That's not like detecting thoughts via fMRI, it's like detecting tomorrows malware with yesterday's malware signatures. Or like researchers making a vaccine against the common cold
And the obvious proposal to fix that has been made multiple times in this thread: don't make take-at-home tasks part of the grade. Instead of trying to punish what you can't reliably detect, take away the incentive to do it in the first place
Do AI vendors specifically train models to circumvent AI detectors? Why would they?
I don't understand your argument. The vendors for these detection tools can acquire recent samples from all frontier models just as easily as you can use them to write essays. There's nothing that requires a one-year delay.
Different people. I for one have always claimed that fMRI is too coarse-grained for detailed thought detection.
If AI detection "sometimes fails", it doesn't "work". It works well enough to convict someone with other evidence, but when there's no other evidence nor an attempt to get any, it has no good use.
What I propose is simple: grade only closed-book exams, and hold students' phones during the exams. Students don't need 1:1 monitoring, it's the same as 10-20 years ago.
(This is roughly the same problem as evaluating software that only does an approximation of what it claims to do.)
(Aside: AI-based variations on this theme are in the early stages of proliferating across our society. They're being developed by many people using this forum and being sold to our schools, businesses, governments, and other organizations with little regard to whether they actually do what they claim.)
This is tackling the problem from the wrong direction. The right direction would be to make it harder to cheat in the first place. For example: if the student submits an essay, and that student is able to coherently and accurately answer any questions asked about the essay in a face-to-face conversation, then that student is probably the genuine author of that essay.
- I don't think this lowers the cost of detection as much as you imagine. You still need to know the paper better than the student and have to sacrifice already tight instruction/planning/grading time to have all of these conversations. Even if you catch enough to successfully deter most, it likely means not covering something else. It won't be too hard to catch low-effort cheaters who can't be bothered to read the paper, but you're on the low-leverage side of an arms race with the remaining students. You have experience on your side and they can't know what you'll ask, but they outnumber you and can certainly read the paper and use LLMs to quiz them on it. You have to invest your effort without knowing how each student prepared, so you'll spend about as much effort on every low-effort cheat as you do on the highest-effort cheat you are prepared to catch.
- Not sure it is "from the wrong direction" since both approaches raise the cost of cheating and lower the cost of detecting it.
- While this does avoid encouraging students to dumb down their work, it does still raise the cost of not-cheating. Unless you surprise the students with these conversations, the ones that care most will still anxiously prepare.
Honestly, I lean towards shaming educators who do that. If you can't detect the whiff of LLM with your own senses, then it has been used properly and shouldn't be faulted. If that premise invalidates your assignment, change the assignment. It's not as if you're assigning this work to test the basic mechanics of writing (grammar, sentence/paragraph structure, parallelism, whatever) — I mean, how much of that did you consciously try to teach? My recollection is, not an awful lot; and I can only imagine it's gotten worse since I was in K-12 (and I went to pretty darn good K-12).
But wouldn't this apply to any cheating method? I don't think educators would be able to tell the difference between using a calculator, getting answers from previous tests, resubmitting assignments, etc.
> using a calculator
Students who are at a level where they'd be learning to do the computations a calculator does, shouldn't have graded homework. And even at that level, real mathematics is more than just computation.
> getting answers from previous tests
Decades ago, my teachers and professors knew advanced tricks for this, like "not just reusing the test questions from last year". Sometimes they even changed the constants in math questions between sections of the class.
Reading previous tests (including correct answers) was never considered cheating, or even slightly unethical, in my education. In fact, one of our professors had this party trick of working through all the answers for a past-year exam (perhaps multiple of them; I can't recall the details, but certainly much faster than students were expected to work things out under exam conditions) in the space of a single lecture, near the end of the course. Students were meant to see this and learn from it (as well as be impressed).
> resubmitting assignments
Why would you ever not notice this?
>Students who are at a level where they'd be learning to do the computations a calculator does, shouldn't have graded homework. And even at that level, real mathematics is more than just computation.
So, a math level less than Real analysis shouldn't have graded homework?
>Decades ago, my teachers and professors knew advanced tricks for this, like "not just reusing the test questions from last year".
Math is not the only subject. For an English class, what constant would you change so that students get a comparable exam (especially if you are going to do this between sections in the same corhort)?
>resubmitting assignments
Students are not stupid, and obviously would not resubmit an assignment for the same teacher. However, there is a significant overlap between classes, so certain assignments should be retooled for other assignments.
The discourse around "cheating" with these products has always been a mistake. We should have characterized them less as "cheating machines" and more as "expediency machines." Because once you're invested in describing students as having academic dishonesty issues rather than skill issues, you've made it an administrative problem. You never come back from that.
For mine, we lost the issue long ago when accountability culture won. We should never have bothered with the idea that "mechanics, grammar, and proofreading" should be part of a "rubric" that "assessed outcomes" for "good writing." We should have just said "we don't care if you don't think this is worthwhile, because your time is worth nothing." The last two years of student labor certainly suggests this.
I think your point stands for upper level work; however, at medium to lower levels, your counterfactual starts to weaken. The ideas have always been there, but it's the ability to express them--well enough to notice their presence--that is not.
I've noticed I write a lot different because of combative online arguments. I have a problem.
So much of my communication is directed to people who don't want to hear me or understand me. So I've become very punchy and repetitive, trying to hammer home ideas that people are either unable or unwilling to understand.
I need to find ways to talk to people who want to hear and understand me.
It's hard to find other people who actually want to hear and understand though. People have different interests, and even when people appear to be working towards the same goal, they often aren't; like a boss who just won't understand the bad news, because it's easier to ignore the problem.
I'm told blogging works for some. I don't really know how you build an audience, though, and it's hard to keep going (first-hand experience) without one.
For example, I abhor talking about modern politics. If it’s election season and I’m being asked to cast a vote or take some other specific civic action, then I understand it’s my civic duty to understand the situation and make a decision accordingly and I do.
But if it’s March and there’s really nothing specific I can do as a result of this particular conversation, I would probably also be in your camp of the “unwilling”. I would much rather chat about something else, or nothing at all.
I'm also assuming you're referring to in-person communication. If it's online communication, all bets are off. It's unlikely you're having a linear conversation and these days you're probably not even talking to a person.
I find that a little faith goes a long way here: assume that you have a higher audience and speak to them accordingly.
Don't let the loud ones confuse you: normal, reasonable people (with normal, reasonable thoughts, just like yours) might not always reply, but they also read you.
The result is that a ton of web forum/social-media posting would, in any other context, be fairly poor writing (even if it's otherwise got no problems) simply because of the the extra crap and contortions required to minimize garbage posts by poor readers who are, themselves, allowed to post to the same medium.
This is in addition to, though not wholly separate from, the tendency toward combativeness in online posting.
yeah but if the OP doesn't do that and you confront their argument they can retreat into definitions and ambiguity without addressing your rebuttal. i think its good manners to be hyper-specific particularly on HN where there tend to be a lot of martian brained people who need it to engage with you. the fuzziness just won't do.
If people do not share the same context, then they will come up with different interpretations of the same content.
In communities with more homogenous understanding of the context, people are able to get into the details more effectively.
Those communities tend to also be impervious to outsiders, or newbies, because the use of terms/jargon that speeds up conversation abound.
If they don't want to listen, why waste the time?
> So I've become very punchy and repetitive, trying to hammer home ideas that people are either unable or unwilling to understand.
If they don't want it, why stuff it down their throats? Aren't they allowed to have their own ideas?
Is your life easier to not waste time on them? I guess. But obviously you're going to put yourself in a similar bubble, and to whatever extent the issue is important it's now become undiscussed. As you've hinted at, they could be right and you wrong, but the difference is (at least in the premise) that one is willing to talk and listen and so really only one side has the potential to change and it's not based on the merit of the argument—because of course no conversation took place. How hard does one try to encourage someone else to listen? Or rather continuing pursuing a conversation that's being denied? That's the tension. I don't know other than it seems like the side unwilling to listen wins a little bit each time they've successfully evaded it and wins a little more when the other has decided to let it go. I don't just mean they've won a proverbial argument, I mean the issue or decision in question tilts toward their side.
Ask more questions. It takes work when dealing with smart people who think beyond the question you asked, adding their own context, and then replying with a different question. But those are the people who are willing to engage with you. Statements without questions can be ignored, and people who engage with different questions than the ones that you asked can be safely ignored as those who don't want to engage.
The cure to a purely adversarial conversation is educated curiosity. The educated part being being able to differentiate the threads that will lead down a tribalistic path vs those that will lead down an exploratory one.
More important than all of the above, is knowing when to walk away. It's barely a majority, but that barely majority "want" to waste your time. Ignore their DOS attempt, and save your time for people who want to engage, fairly. The fairly part being the most important.
I think grading in general can be stymying for students' motivation and creative drives.
I wish brevity and linguistic precision were taught more, as well. Miscommunication due to ambiguity is one of the biggest causes I see for confusion or heated arguments.
Good riddance to the thing.
These kinds of things are novel to us and deserving skepticism, but become just the world we live in to them.
why are they using software to detect software?
I can detect AI written prose in less than five seconds; I would expect a trained teacher to be able to do that as well.
It turns out to be built into the training data. The diffusion model just doesn't have many references of naked people not embedded in porn tropes, so it autocompletes porn.
Online moderation of generated images have the same weird incentive. Since real people seldom film themselves having sex, a naked person not having sex is a red flag for a possible real person, and gets moderated more strongly.
So in the new world, well written sentences are a handicap and nudity is generally accompanied by an exchange of fluids.
In my experience educators no longer use AI detectors given the risk of false positives. But some work is obviously lazy AI content. When that happens, educators talk to the student to see if they understand what they wrote.
Teachers cope with more in person writing, oral presentations, defense of what’s been written.
If you think out it the pre-AI computing generation is itself anomalous for having ubiquitous access to efficient human-only writing tools. We probably wrote more than previous generations. Early Internet / blogging culture bears this out.
If now teachers abdicate this judgment to a software, students should be allowed to abdicate their duties to a computer as well.
Then no one learns to write.
And someone will argue that writing is outdated, and maybe thinking is outdated, and no one needs to learn it anymore. But AI isn't actually better at writing than the best humans, it's just better at writing than students, who are still learning the craft. And in order to reach a point where you're better than the AI, you have to practice without the AI.
I think we need more writing to be done in proctored environments. Yes this sucks, for students who will need to work under some amount of time pressure, and for faculty and staff who will need to proctor. But it's the only way.
This reminds me a bit of that. AI writing is—in many ways—objectively very good, but that doesn’t matter if no one thinks you wrote it. AI writing is boring exactly because it is consistent and like any art form people want to see something original.
But, the article's focus on writing "worse" for AI detectors misses what is important. Trying to distinguish humans from machines does not develop student capability. In fact, it's a fleeting technique because AI writing styles will vary and improve over time.
This will likely be valuable for AI skills too.
Glad to see some schools and teachers teach how to use them well, rather than ban them outright.
On a side note: the fixed-pattern essay thing seems to be an American invention, or at least popularized by the American education system.
As soon as someone yells "witch" you cannot disprove you're not one, and I've even had people put my handwritten comments through "AI detector" websites that "proved" they were AI (they weren't). It literally just highlighted two popular English phases.
LLMs were trained on sites like HN and Reddit, so now if you write like a HN or Reddit commentator, you sound like AI...
LinkedIn, OTOH....
If someone calls an article like this a "jeremiad" I know they're a human.
Just make it be what you want to say and how you want to say it. And when they come after you, shame them to the best of your ability or treat them like they are not there.
It wasn't someone who was primarily motivated by fear of the past that made it work the first time.
I've begun downvoting each and every entry that questions the authenticity of a comment or article.
I don't even bother if the claim is true or not. A text can be AI-generated and interesting, or human-written and dumb.
Teachers are being hamstrung on curriculum. The districts enter into contracts that require the use of certain programs for certain amounts of time. We've known for decades (if not a century) that direct instruction works [1] but you can't sell devices, platforms and consulting services that way.
We're literally at the point in education we were in the 1950s when the health benefits of nicotine in your Q zone were lighting up the airwaves.
And generative AI means it's all but impossible to have take home writing assignments. But hey this is another opportunity to sell AI or cheating detection software, that's often just an em-dash detection [2].
We have a generation that gets to college quite possibly having never written a book. social promotion through grades and the constant distraction of electronic devices in classroom settings. I don't even necessarily blame the parents entirely either because we've constructed a society where 2 people need 5 jobs to make ends meet.
And while all this is going on we have a coordinated and well-funded effort to defund public education and move government funds to private schools based on the failing public education that's failing because we defunded it. This is usually backed up by some baloney study that shows charter shcool produce better results that really comes down to charter schools being able to be selective with enrolments while public schools cannot be. Plus we mingle in special education kids into public education because those programs got defunded too.
And really that's just a bunch of already affluent people who want a tax break for doing somethign they were going to do anyway: send their kids to private schools so they don't have to mingle with the poors and aren't taught inconvenient things like human reproduction, critical thinking and self-determination.
And after all of that we just end up teaching kids how to pass standardized tests.
[1]: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/di...
[2]: https://medium.com/@brentcsutoras/the-em-dash-dilemma-how-a-...
My institution subscribes to TurnItIn's AI detector. The documentation is quite clear that the system is tuned in a manner that produces a significant number of false negatives and minimizes false positives. They also state that they don't report anything under "20% AI-generated" content.
So the marketing I've seen is intended to reassure skittish administrators that the software is not going to generate false accusations.
That being said, I have no idea whether the marketing claims are true. The software is a black box.
That said, their accuracy claims have been disputed before. Inside Higher Ed [1] reported that Turnitin's real-world false positive rate was higher than originally asserted, and the company declined to disclose the updated number. And, USD also noted that while Turnitin claimed <1% false positives, a Washington Post investigation found a 50% rate on a smaller sample, and that non-native English speakers / neurodivergent students get flagged at higher rates [2].
Now, those are from 2023 and the product (and AI in general) has been updated drastically since. But the broader incentive problem holds even if the detector itself is conservatively tuned. The product is a black box. And the downstream cost of errors falls entirely on students, not on Turnitin's renewal rate. You don't need aggressive tuning for the incentive structure to be broken.
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/06/01/t...
[2] https://lawlibguides.sandiego.edu/c.php?g=1443311&p=10721367
This is it, right here. All policy I've seen lately has been geared towards students having expanded "due process" rights.
Did not this self censorship process started decades ago? There are certain answers expected in academia, arguing for anything else would get you in troubles. Not using “devoid” seems pretty minor inconvenience.
For me biggest wtf is why students are still expected to write graded essays, and to keep this make believe it is somehow useful and applicable skill.
In short it’s a good way measure thinking.
The schools simply don’t have the flexibility, agility, or frankly it seems motivation to adapt to what has already happened.
The ship has sailed; essay writing is no longer a viable form of assessment.
The idea to try to build a reliable AI detector is asinine, and fundamentally misunderstands how any of this works now, let alone the very obvious trend-lines.
Stop with the lazy half-baked solutions, get your head out of the sand, rethink the whole curriculum. This is an emergency, we needed to be urgently attending to this years ago.
This has nothing to do with Public School in particular. This is impacting private and university education too.
Of course it is. In person, with an unseen prompt/question. By hand or not doesn’t really matter as we can airgap or just monitor via software when in class.
But keep in mind, it may have always been this way. God bless those few cool teachers in each school who are aware of this and work to rescue a few who need it.
Love changes everything. Good teachers matter.
Have you considered using your own words to express those thoughts?