347

College student put on academic probation for using Grammarly: ‘AI violation’ (nypost.com)

submitted 9 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

82 comments fedilink hide all child comments

College student put on academic probation for using Grammarly: ‘AI violation’::Marley Stevens, a junior at the University of North Georgia, says she was wrongly accused of cheating.

(page 2) 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] boatsnhos931@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

God damnit Kevin quit trying to extort the sexy college girls

[-] Pistcow@lemm.ee -3 points 9 months ago

My masters program told us to use AI all we wanted but just site the use.

[-] echodot@feddit.uk 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Seems like the same sort of solution as my school had about Wikipedia which is by all means use it but site the sources not cite the content.

Quite a lot of AI will give you sources that you can check when they are referencing stuff, so just check those references to make sure it's not made things up and then as long as it's fine cite those websites and articles.

[-] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -1 points 9 months ago

nice!

load more comments (2 replies)

[+] bool@lemm.ee -71 points 9 months ago

You may not agree with the policy or the tools used, but the rules were clear, and at this point she has no evidence that she did not use some other Generative AI tool. It’s just her word against another AI that is trained to detect generated material.

What is telling is her reaction to all of this, literally making a national news story because she was flagged as a cheater. I promise if she wasn’t white or attractive NY Post wouldn’t do anything. What a massive self own. Long after she leaves school this story will be the top hit on a google search of her name and she will out herself as a cheater.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 9 months ago

... No proof she didn't? What could possibly prove that?

Can you give me an example of this proof? And if so, is that something reasonable for a student to have?

Seriously, think it through.

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

If you write something in Word or an equivalent program, there will be metadata of the save files that shows creation and edit timestamps. If they use something like Google Docs, there's a very similar mechanism via the version history. I actually had the metadata from a Word document be useful in a legal case.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 1 points 9 months ago

Ok, and that's proof of what exactly? That you made the file when you said you did?

Not to mention, you can set those to whatever value you want

I can see how it could be part of a court case, because it's one more little corroborating detail. It doesn't prove anything though

[-] medgremlin@midwest.social 1 points 9 months ago

The edit history would show things like copy/pasting large blocks of text versus normally typed edits.

[-] theneverfox@pawb.social 2 points 9 months ago

A quick search shows you can edit this as well... That is interesting though, I didn't know it existed

Give me a couple hours and I could build something that makes pastes appear to be keystrokes. Give me a weekend, and I can build something mathematically indistinguishable from a human typing that will hold up to intense scrutiny

It still doesn't prove anything, it's just one more piece of circumstantial evidence. Still, it's not unreasonable to paste the full text into it, or mix and match. Maybe you don't have word installed on your computer - I don't, I haven't since I was in school myself. It's reasonable to use word on school computers but do all of the work on an online text editor, then pasting into word on a school computer

[-] rottingleaf@lemmy.zip 0 points 9 months ago

You may not agree with the policy or the tools used, but the rules were clear,

OK, if you'll be consistent and agree that using Taro cards to determine who's cheating is normal, if rules say that.

and at this point she has no evidence that she did not use some other Generative AI tool

Your upbringing lacks in some key regards.

It’s just her word against another AI that is trained to detect generated material.

There are (or should be) allowances for the degree of precision where any tool can be trusted. If it is wrong in 1% of cases - then its use is unacceptable. In 0.1% - acceptable only if she doesn't argue it. In 0.01% something - acceptable with some other good evidence.

I'll help you become a bit less of an ape and inform you that an "AI" (or anything based on machine learning) can't be used as a sole detector of anything at all.

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2024

347 points (96.8% liked)

Technology

59670 readers

1939 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS