It's a really, really good thing that I retired from teaching and that my kids finished school before ChatGPT came along, or I'd have lost my damn mind. Turning in work that was not produced by you is plagiarism, full stop.
At the risk of sounding like a cranky old grandma: back in my day, we had these things called "blue books," and the whole piece of writing we were turning in had to spring, Athena-like, from our very own heads, in our very own handwriting, during the class session, in full view of the professor.
I'm not fully a Luddite; I can see that AI has uses (certainly in the sciences, for example), but it's really nothing more than a glorified search engine or spreadsheet: it's great for finding needles in haystacks, or sifting through ridiculous volumes of data to highlight the most promising leads, but it's not good for producing anything truly *new*. If you prompt it to write something, it will just regurgitate old words into new permutations. Nothing truly original will have been added to the lexicon of humanity, and its use in the arts and humanities will tarnish our output and diminish a lot of what makes us special as a species.
I don't think students or teachers should be using AI. It encourages students not to learn and accept anything, no matter the quality as long as it gets them a good grade. Why not just buy an old essay or test?
Teachers should know better; it may solve some problems or time in finding patterns in helping identify struggling students, but isn't that what teachers are trained for? Using their trained and analytical skills to find those patterns & correct them?
It's a really, really good thing that I retired from teaching and that my kids finished school before ChatGPT came along, or I'd have lost my damn mind. Turning in work that was not produced by you is plagiarism, full stop.
At the risk of sounding like a cranky old grandma: back in my day, we had these things called "blue books," and the whole piece of writing we were turning in had to spring, Athena-like, from our very own heads, in our very own handwriting, during the class session, in full view of the professor.
I'm not fully a Luddite; I can see that AI has uses (certainly in the sciences, for example), but it's really nothing more than a glorified search engine or spreadsheet: it's great for finding needles in haystacks, or sifting through ridiculous volumes of data to highlight the most promising leads, but it's not good for producing anything truly *new*. If you prompt it to write something, it will just regurgitate old words into new permutations. Nothing truly original will have been added to the lexicon of humanity, and its use in the arts and humanities will tarnish our output and diminish a lot of what makes us special as a species.
Wow! You and O. Alan Noble should chat over coffee (or a beer) about your AI articles. I wish I could sit at the table.
I don't think students or teachers should be using AI. It encourages students not to learn and accept anything, no matter the quality as long as it gets them a good grade. Why not just buy an old essay or test?
Teachers should know better; it may solve some problems or time in finding patterns in helping identify struggling students, but isn't that what teachers are trained for? Using their trained and analytical skills to find those patterns & correct them?