Fuck AI

Distillation:

Let me tell you why the Trojan horse worked. It is because students do not know what they do not know. My hidden text asked them to write the paper “from a Marxist perspective”. Since the events in the book had little to do with the later development of Marxism, I thought the resulting essay might raise a red flag with students, but it didn’t.

I had at least eight students come to my office to make their case against the allegations, but not a single one of them could explain to me what Marxism is, how it worked as an analytical lens or how it even made its way into their papers they claimed to have written. The most shocking part was that apparently, when ChatGPT read the prompt, it even directly asked if it should include Marxism, and they all said yes. As one student said to me, “I thought it sounded smart.”

I decided to not punish them. All I know how to do is teach, so that’s what I did. I assigned a wonderful essay by Cal Poly professor Patrick Lin that he addressed to his class on the benefits and detriments of AI use. I attached instructions that asked them to read it and reflect. These instructions also had a Trojan horse.

Thirty-six of my AI students completed it. One of them used AI, and the other 12 have been slowly dropping the class. Ultimately, 35 out of 47 isn’t too bad. The responses to the assignment were generally good, and some were deeply reflective.

But a handful said something I found quite sad: “I just wanted to write the best essay I could.” Those students in question, who at least tried to provide some of their own thoughts before mixing them with the generated result, had already written the best essay they could. And I guess that’s why I hate AI in the classroom as much as I do.

Students are afraid to fail, and AI presents itself as a saviour. But what we learn from history is that progress requires failure. It requires reflection. Students are not just undermining their ability to learn, but to someday lead.

Here's the link to the actual article. I get that you're trying to do users a favour to bypass tracking at the original URL, but the Internet Archive is a Free service that shouldn't be abused for link cleaning as it costs a lot of money to store and serve all this stuff and it's meant as an "archive", not an ad-blocking proxy.

I'm posting this in part because currently clicking that link errors it with a "too many requests" error. Let's try to be a little kinder to the good guys, shall we?

If users wasnt a cleaner/safer/faster browsing experience, I recommend ditching Chrome for Firefox and getting the standard set of extensions: uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger, etc.

In one of my classes, when ChatGPT was still new, I once handed out homework assignments related to programming. Multiple students handed in code that obviously came from ChatGPT (too clean a style, too general for the simple tasks that they were required to do).

Decided to bring one of the most egregious cases to class to discuss, because several people handed in something similar, so at least someone should be able to explain how the code works, right? Nobody could, so we went through it and made sense of it together. The code was also nonfunctional, so we looked at why it failed, too. I then gave them the talk about how their time in university is likely the only time in their lives when they can fully commit themselves to learning, and where each class is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to learn something in a way that they will never be able to experience again after they graduate (plus some stuff about fairness) and how they are depriving themselves of these opportunities by using AI in this way.

This seemed to get through, and we then established some ground rules that all students seemed to stick with throughout the rest of the class. I now have an AI policy that explains what kind of AI use I consider acceptable and unacceptable. Doesn't solve the problem completely, but I haven't had any really egregious cases since then. Most students listen once they understand it's really about them and their own "becoming" professional and a more fully developed person.

Let me tell you why the Trojan horse worked. It is because students do not know what they do not know. My hidden text asked them to write the paper “from a Marxist perspective”. Since the events in the book had little to do with the later development of Marxism, I thought the resulting essay might raise a red flag with students, but it didn’t.

I had at least eight students come to my office to make their case against the allegations, but not a single one of them could explain to me what Marxism is, how it worked as an analytical lens or how it even made its way into their papers they claimed to have written. The most shocking part was that apparently, when ChatGPT read the prompt, it even directly asked if it should include Marxism, and they all said yes. As one student said to me, “I thought it sounded smart.”

Christ.......

You pay to go to college. Then essentially do the equivalent of lighting that money on fire by not engaging with the product/services you just purchased.

39% of the submissions were at least partially written by AI

That's better than my class. I taught CS101 last year, code not papers. 90%+ of the homework was done with AI. There was literally just 1 person who would turn in unique code. Everyone else would turn in ChatGPT code.

I adapted by making the homework worth very little of the grade and moving the bulk of the grade to in-class paper and pencil exams.

I think the only solution is the Cambridge exam system.

The only grade they get is at the final written exam. all other assignments and tests are formative, to see if they are on track or to practice skills... This way it does not matter if a student cheats in those assignments, they only hurt themselves. Sorry for the final exam stress though.

Don't really know how to feel about this because 15 years ago, all I did was reword Wikipedia pages to make a good paper. I went to college because I was led to believe it was a requirement to do well in life. I still learned a lot, but that was mostly through the social interaction of coursework. And honestly, I don't use anything from college in my current engineering job, it was all on-the-job panic learning. If I were to go back to college today, it would be such an enlightening experience of learning, but when you're a kid getting out of high school, you're just trying to get by with some gameplan that you've only been told about. Idk. I don't blame them for using a tool that's so easily accessible because college is about fun too. I guess I wouldn't do it different at that age .

*Words, phrases and punctuation rarely used by the average college student – or anyone for that matter (em dash included) – are pervasive. *

Hey, fuck you too >:(

From later in the article:

Students are afraid to fail, and AI presents itself as a saviour. But what we learn from history is that progress requires failure. It requires reflection. Students are not just undermining their ability to learn, but to someday lead.

I think this is the big issue with 'ai cheating'. Sure, the LLM can create a convincing appearance of understanding some topic, but if you're doing anything of importance, like making pizza, and don't have the critical thinking you learn in school then you might think that glue is actually a good way to keep the cheese from sliding off.

A cheap meme example for sure, but think about how that would translate to a Senator trying to deal with more complex topics.... actually, on second thought, it might not be any worse. 🤷

Edit: Adding that while critical thinking is a huge part. it's more of the "you don't know what you don't know" that tripped these students up, and is the danger when using LLM in any situation where you can't validate it's output yourself and it's just a shortcut like making some boilerplate prose or code.

This method is now increasingly known (there’s even an episode of “The Simpsons” about it) and likely has already run its course as a plausible method for saving oneself from reading and grading AI slop. To be brief, I inserted hidden text into an assignment’s directions that the students couldn’t see but that ChatGPT can.

I received several emails and spoke with a few students who came to my office and were genuinely apologetic. I had a few that tried to fight me on the accusations, too, assuming I flagged them as AI for “well written sentences”. But the Trojan horse did not lie.

lmfao, I hope he failed those kids anyways.

Students would want to learn instead of doing less work if there were incentives to learn instead of just get out with a degree.

It should be treated the same as if another student wrote the paper. If it was used as a research tool where you didn't repeat it word for word then it's cool, it can be treated like a peer that helped you research. But using it to fully write then it's an instant fail because you didn't do anything.

But I am a historian, so I will close on a historian’s note: History shows us that the right to literacy came at a heavy cost for many Americans, ranging from ostracism to death. Those in power recognised that oppression is best maintained by keeping the masses illiterate, and those oppressed recognised that literacy is liberation.

It's scary how much damage is being done to education, not just from AI but also the persistent attacks on public education in the US over decades, hampering the system with things like No Child Left Behind and diverting funds to private schools with vouchers in the name of "school choice". On top of that there are suggestions that teachers aren't even needed and that students could be taught with AI. It's grim.

I heard of something brilliant though: The teacher TELLS the students to have the AI generate an essay on a subject AND THEN the students have to go through the paper and point out all the shit it got WRONG :D

I'm guessing 33 people were too lazy to copy data into a box and relied on ChatGPT OCR lol.

This was a great article about the use of AI, but I think this also exposed bad/zero effort cheating.

There's a reason why even the ye olde Wikipedia copy-pasters would rearrange sentences to make sure they can game the plagiarism checker.

Okay fine and all, but are we not going to talk about the cat?

Great article.

How do we teach that when a student doesn’t want to learn?

Good question. But maybe we've gone overboard with the density of information and we just need to relax a little and give the kids their childhood back.

Had trouble with this myself teaching. Students this semester have been good about it (probably because I've been very explicit in my contempt and also it kept blundering) but last semester was tricky.

One thing I learned was I need to also insist no Grammarly. That used to be allowed but it makes original writing sound very AI. I also riddled my assignments with short oral segments and personal stories.

It cuts into class time but I've managed to make those sessions educational since my "presentations" are always conversations w/ students. No ppts. Actually kinda fun and very much weeds out cheaters lol