I did this, and it gave a performance of self correction, but it didn't actually demonstrate an understanding of what it did wrong: I said: How are the stu

I did this, and it gave a performance of self correction, but it didn't actually demonstrate an understanding of what it did wrong: I said: How are the students supposed to compile their C programs before week 12? It said: You make a good point. Students would need to be able to compile their C programs before week 12. In fact, compiling C programs should be introduced earlier in the course, ideally in the first few weeks along with the introduction to C. Which, again, makes sense at face value, but the schedule does cover building C programs in the first few weeks. The problem is that it shouldn't be covering it again in week 12. The response I was hoping for was You make a good point. We introduced compiling C programs in week 4, so doing this topic again in week 12 is redundant. Instead we can cover a different topic that fits nicely, which would be.... You know what ChatGPT reminds me of? Talking to an undergraduate who always nods and agrees that they are following your logic. Then when you ask them to tell you their understanding, it's either an exact parrot of what you said, or wildly off due to some preconceived notion or general lack of understanding of the topic. Either way, they can never let on that they are clueless.