this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2024
71 points (100.0% liked)
Fuck AI
1438 readers
331 users here now
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
founded 8 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
He still got a fucking 65.
Not a 0. Not the automatic fail for the entire course he deserved. A 65 on that assignment he didn't do.
So he's a High School student and as High School students do, they fuck up. Ideally they are given a punishment, given the ability to learn from it, and grow. That's why they don't fail the whole course.
As for the 65, there is a thought that if you give a student a 0 then they are thrown into a hole from which they cannot escape. If there were only two assignments for the class and you received a 0 on the first and a 100 on the second you'd receive an average grade of 50 and fail the class. As a result why try on the second assignment if you fail no matter what. If the 0 is a 65 then you can still dig your way out and pass the class.
The goal is to give growing students a chance to recover. It's a fine line to walk.
Cheating isn't a mistake, and a 65 is less than a slap on the wrist.
It's telling them that cheating is perfectly OK.
I mean if it wasn't against the rules, I don't think they should 'punish' for it. Then again, I got in trouble for using AskJeeves and DogPile, so I'm a bit biased about new tech and the requirement to give proper instructions to kids (not everyone is great at reading between the lines).
It was explicitly against the rules.
But even if it somehow weren't, it's literally impossible for it to not be cheating. Anything that isn't your own words is plagiarism.
Where was it against the rules and do you have proof beyond the weak assumptions made in the article? Aside from sources that didn't exist, or citing their use of Grammerly (oh shit, I should cite MS word too because it suggested a synonym so my paper would be more 'concise' lol), I'm not seeing much proof. The teachers testimony was largely based on the fact one AI said the other paper had portions of AI generated content, and her feeling like 52 minutes on the final paper isn't enough. I spend way less than 52 minutes on my final drafts because it was largely just copying/pasting shit from my rough drafts and maybe deciding to reword.
At the end of the day though, we are all making some leaps in our judgement. Allowing the use of AI at the school, then getting pissed at some bs being submitted is like allowing students to use calculators then blaming the student for not being able to show their long division.
The case has been posted all over for weeks, and multiple cited the district policy against AI.
It is literally impossible for using an LLM to write a portion of a paper not to constitute plagiarism. There is no exception. You didn't write it if an AI did.
LLMs should not be allowed anywhere near a school. Using a calculator in an arithmetic class is absolutely comparable, though, for the exact opposite of the argument you're making. The entire purpose is to learn to execute the math so you understand the math. If you can't do it without a calculator, you did not learn the material. Using a calculator in a class that doesn't allow them is cheating for a reason.
I totally apologize if I've caused you some distress with my views and words. After reading through the article, I didn't see any rule listed. Could there be one, sure why not, I didn't see it and my attention got pulled away by the teachers 'feeling' being quoted as holding so much weight in what should have been an open/shut case of 'is X prohibited from being used?/Was that communicated properly?/Was it understood?'
If my words offend or frustrate, I truly apologize and I hope you have a wonderful weekend!