4 ms·

What is unauthorized use of technology? Is the light I need to read not technology? Is using the internet to find more about a topic not technology? Where is th

What is unauthorized use of technology? Is the light I need to read not technology? Is using the internet to find more about a topic not technology? Where is the line that makes AI forbidden?

lincon127 2y ago
Libertarian brain
llamaimperative 2y ago
Don't think yourself into a hole there bud
theamk 2y ago
Have you actually read the piece? The answers to those is in the written policy the student was given. But even without the policy, it should be pretty clear that passing others' work as your own (be they people or AI) is academic dishonesty. As judge said, "the emergence of generative AI may present some nuanced challenges for educators, the issue here is not particularly nuanced"
- thrw42A8N 2y ago
  Is what I wrote here mine or not? I used the autocorrect suggestions almost exclusively, wrote few letters only.
  - kenjackson 2y ago
    Then, no. This isn’t text you generated. No one cares on Internet forums though.
  - theamk 2y ago
    Who came up with the words? If autocorrect is acting as a typist, transferring your words to screen, you are the author.
    - thrw42A8N 2y ago
      What if I first asked ChatGPT what should I say? And what's the difference from just copy pasting it?
      - theamk 2y ago
        The question is who comes up with words. If you re-type textbook, you are plagiarizing. Same happens if you re-type ChatGPT output. On the other hand, if you read some text first (be it ChatGPT's output, or a textbook) and then rephrase it yourself, then you are the author. How much you have to rephrase? Is changing every other word with synonym enough? That's actually a gray area, and it depends on the teacher. Most teachers would expect you to at least change sentence structure. But in this case it's completely irrelevant, as we know the students did copy/paste. I really don't see why you are trying to present ChatGPT like something special re plagiarism. Copying other's work is copying. Paying $10 to someone to do your homework and then copying their answer as-is is cheating. So is using ChatGPT yo do it for free.
        thrw42A8N 2y ago
        ChatGPT is not someone. It's a tool.
        theamk 2y ago
        So is a textbook. Still not OK to copy homework from it.
        thrw42A8N 2y ago
        Textbook has an author that you can copy. You can't copy output of an auto suggest, it's just yours.
        theamk 2y ago
        It does not matter if author is human or computer. If there is a spelling bee, but student is secretly using spellcheck on the phone, they are cheating. If there is a math speed competition, but student is using a calculator on the phone, they are cheating. If it's a calculus exam, but student is using Wolfram Alpha (or TI-89) to calculate integrals and derivatives, it is cheating. If it's a written exam but student is using ChatGPT to write the text, it is cheating as well. Not that different from previous cases.
jdiff 2y ago
The lack of implicit or explicit authorization. As the school has lights, you may assume they are authorized implicitly. This is unproductive and unenlightening pedantry.
- donatj 2y ago
  I think the throwaway actually raises the valid point about the rule being an exceedingly broad catchall. The type primed for selective and weaponized enforcement. That said, the kids are clearly defenseless in this situation, for blatant plagiarism as well as just being just being factually incorrect in their report.
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    > The type primed for selective and weaponized enforcement Theoretically true, but irrelevant because this particular case isn't that.
  - nkrisc 2y ago
    Yes, it is broad, and probably a bad rule. That said, there is more than enough than that simple rule in this case that points toward intentional academic dishonesty. If he was my son, getting off on a technicality isn’t exoneration in my house.
salawat 2y ago
In education, the goal is internalizing to the individual the knowledge required for them to bootstrap into a useful, contributing member of society. Things like composition of written works, organizing one's thoughts into communicable artifacts, doing basic mathematics, familiarity with the local and encompassing polity and it's history, how to navigate and utilize institutions of research (libraries) etc... Any technology employed that prevents or sidesteps that internalization is unauthorized. It ain't that hard to connect the dots unless you're going out of your way to not connect the dots.
- emptiestplace 2y ago
  Both in and out of education, "it's" always means "it is" or "it has".
- thrw42A8N 2y ago
  If that is the goal of a specific task, be explicit about that. From my personal experience, it's just what old teachers say because they can't deal with the new reality. The teachers who incorporated AI and other tech into their lessons are much more successful and better rated - by parents as well as children, and the final exams too.
  - theamk 2y ago
    They were explicit about that! There was an AI policy that the student knew about and blatantly ignored. I am not sure how much more did you want. Here is a relevant quote from the TFA: > Although students were permitted to use AI to brainstorm topics and identify sources, in this instance the students had indiscriminately copied and pasted text from the AI application, including citations to nonexistent books (i.e., AI hallucinations). (And re better rating: sadly making classes less useful usually improves the rating. I sure if there was a class where they were just watching cartoons, with super-simple quizzes at the end that everyone could answer, it'd have highest ratings from most students, as well as high ratings from many parents, and best scores on finals. Now, it might not work that hot in real world, but by that time the school would be long over...)
nkrisc 2y ago
The part where students were given explicit guidance on the use of AI resources and told how to cite it appropriately. Besides, even aside from the use of technology it’s still a blatant case of plagiarism as he passed off work he did not write as his own.
- wqaatwt 2y ago
  How could you even cite AI “appropriately”? That makes about as much sense as citing Google..
  - ben_w 2y ago
    Like e.g. this: “Clarity isn’t found in answers; it’s carved from the questions we dare to ask.” - ChatGPT, https://chatgpt.com/share/67439692-b098-8011-b1df-84d3761bbac7 https://chatgpt.com/share/67439692-b098-8011-b1df-84d3761bba...
    - wqaatwt 2y ago
      I know that being obtuse is sometimes fun.. But no paper (even high school level) which does that should ever be accepted..
      - ben_w 2y ago
        No paper? If you're clear what your sources are, why does it matter who (or what) you quote? Boris Johnson and GWB are known (for different reasons) spouting jibberish sentences, yet cite them and if the quote was appropriate then no foul; all fiction is made up and that too can be quoted when appropriate. When I was at school in the UK 24 years back, media studies was denigrated as "mickey mouse studies", but in restrospect the ability to analyse and desconstruct media narratives would have been useful for the country. Now AI is a new media. Sometimes it will be the right thing to quote; sometimes it will be as much of an error as citing Wuthering Heights in an essay about how GWB handled the War On Terror.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago
insane_dreamer 2y ago
Come on, it's not that complicated. The judge determined that the student has copy/pasted the AI output and submitted that. That's not the same as using AI for research just like you use Google Search for research.
dghlsakjg 2y ago
This is like saying that they have an AI policy, but that using an LLM isn’t in violation since it is just calculus applied to words and not true intelligence. Courts aren’t stupid for the most part. Most of them are happy to interpret things in terms of what a ‘reasonable person’ would think, for better or worse. Right now, most reasonable people would say that using an LLM to do your work without disclosing it is in violation of the spirit of the student handbook. I could fine tune an AI, and name it after myself, and put my own name at the top of the paper as an attribution, but no reasonable person would say that was following the spirit of the law if I turned that in as a class assignment.

What is unauthorized use of technology? Is the light I need to read not technology? Is using the internet to find more about a topic not technology? Where is the line that makes AI forbidden?

lincon127 2y ago

Libertarian brain

llamaimperative 2y ago

Don't think yourself into a hole there bud

theamk 2y ago

Have you actually read the piece? The answers to those is in the written policy the student was given. But even without the policy, it should be pretty clear that passing others' work as your own (be they people or AI) is academic dishonesty. As judge said, "the emergence of generative AI may present some nuanced challenges for educators, the issue here is not particularly nuanced"

thrw42A8N 2y ago
Is what I wrote here mine or not? I used the autocorrect suggestions almost exclusively, wrote few letters only.
- kenjackson 2y ago
  Then, no. This isn’t text you generated. No one cares on Internet forums though.
- theamk 2y ago
  Who came up with the words? If autocorrect is acting as a typist, transferring your words to screen, you are the author.
  - thrw42A8N 2y ago
    What if I first asked ChatGPT what should I say? And what's the difference from just copy pasting it?
    - theamk 2y ago
      The question is who comes up with words. If you re-type textbook, you are plagiarizing. Same happens if you re-type ChatGPT output. On the other hand, if you read some text first (be it ChatGPT's output, or a textbook) and then rephrase it yourself, then you are the author. How much you have to rephrase? Is changing every other word with synonym enough? That's actually a gray area, and it depends on the teacher. Most teachers would expect you to at least change sentence structure. But in this case it's completely irrelevant, as we know the students did copy/paste. I really don't see why you are trying to present ChatGPT like something special re plagiarism. Copying other's work is copying. Paying $10 to someone to do your homework and then copying their answer as-is is cheating. So is using ChatGPT yo do it for free.
      - thrw42A8N 2y ago
        ChatGPT is not someone. It's a tool.
        theamk 2y ago
        So is a textbook. Still not OK to copy homework from it.
        thrw42A8N 2y ago
        Textbook has an author that you can copy. You can't copy output of an auto suggest, it's just yours.
        theamk 2y ago
        It does not matter if author is human or computer. If there is a spelling bee, but student is secretly using spellcheck on the phone, they are cheating. If there is a math speed competition, but student is using a calculator on the phone, they are cheating. If it's a calculus exam, but student is using Wolfram Alpha (or TI-89) to calculate integrals and derivatives, it is cheating. If it's a written exam but student is using ChatGPT to write the text, it is cheating as well. Not that different from previous cases.

jdiff 2y ago

The lack of implicit or explicit authorization. As the school has lights, you may assume they are authorized implicitly. This is unproductive and unenlightening pedantry.

donatj 2y ago
I think the throwaway actually raises the valid point about the rule being an exceedingly broad catchall. The type primed for selective and weaponized enforcement. That said, the kids are clearly defenseless in this situation, for blatant plagiarism as well as just being just being factually incorrect in their report.
- ffsm8 2y ago
  > The type primed for selective and weaponized enforcement Theoretically true, but irrelevant because this particular case isn't that.
- nkrisc 2y ago
  Yes, it is broad, and probably a bad rule. That said, there is more than enough than that simple rule in this case that points toward intentional academic dishonesty. If he was my son, getting off on a technicality isn’t exoneration in my house.

salawat 2y ago

In education, the goal is internalizing to the individual the knowledge required for them to bootstrap into a useful, contributing member of society. Things like composition of written works, organizing one's thoughts into communicable artifacts, doing basic mathematics, familiarity with the local and encompassing polity and it's history, how to navigate and utilize institutions of research (libraries) etc... Any technology employed that prevents or sidesteps that internalization is unauthorized. It ain't that hard to connect the dots unless you're going out of your way to not connect the dots.

emptiestplace 2y ago
Both in and out of education, "it's" always means "it is" or "it has".
thrw42A8N 2y ago
If that is the goal of a specific task, be explicit about that. From my personal experience, it's just what old teachers say because they can't deal with the new reality. The teachers who incorporated AI and other tech into their lessons are much more successful and better rated - by parents as well as children, and the final exams too.
- theamk 2y ago
  They were explicit about that! There was an AI policy that the student knew about and blatantly ignored. I am not sure how much more did you want. Here is a relevant quote from the TFA: > Although students were permitted to use AI to brainstorm topics and identify sources, in this instance the students had indiscriminately copied and pasted text from the AI application, including citations to nonexistent books (i.e., AI hallucinations). (And re better rating: sadly making classes less useful usually improves the rating. I sure if there was a class where they were just watching cartoons, with super-simple quizzes at the end that everyone could answer, it'd have highest ratings from most students, as well as high ratings from many parents, and best scores on finals. Now, it might not work that hot in real world, but by that time the school would be long over...)

nkrisc 2y ago

The part where students were given explicit guidance on the use of AI resources and told how to cite it appropriately. Besides, even aside from the use of technology it’s still a blatant case of plagiarism as he passed off work he did not write as his own.

wqaatwt 2y ago
How could you even cite AI “appropriately”? That makes about as much sense as citing Google..
- ben_w 2y ago
  Like e.g. this: “Clarity isn’t found in answers; it’s carved from the questions we dare to ask.” - ChatGPT, https://chatgpt.com/share/67439692-b098-8011-b1df-84d3761bbac7 https://chatgpt.com/share/67439692-b098-8011-b1df-84d3761bba...
  - wqaatwt 2y ago
    I know that being obtuse is sometimes fun.. But no paper (even high school level) which does that should ever be accepted..
    - ben_w 2y ago
      No paper? If you're clear what your sources are, why does it matter who (or what) you quote? Boris Johnson and GWB are known (for different reasons) spouting jibberish sentences, yet cite them and if the quote was appropriate then no foul; all fiction is made up and that too can be quoted when appropriate. When I was at school in the UK 24 years back, media studies was denigrated as "mickey mouse studies", but in restrospect the ability to analyse and desconstruct media narratives would have been useful for the country. Now AI is a new media. Sometimes it will be the right thing to quote; sometimes it will be as much of an error as citing Wuthering Heights in an essay about how GWB handled the War On Terror.
- HeyLaughingBoy 2y ago

insane_dreamer 2y ago

Come on, it's not that complicated. The judge determined that the student has copy/pasted the AI output and submitted that. That's not the same as using AI for research just like you use Google Search for research.

dghlsakjg 2y ago

This is like saying that they have an AI policy, but that using an LLM isn’t in violation since it is just calculus applied to words and not true intelligence. Courts aren’t stupid for the most part. Most of them are happy to interpret things in terms of what a ‘reasonable person’ would think, for better or worse. Right now, most reasonable people would say that using an LLM to do your work without disclosing it is in violation of the spirit of the student handbook. I could fine tune an AI, and name it after myself, and put my own name at the top of the paper as an attribution, but no reasonable person would say that was following the spirit of the law if I turned that in as a class assignment.