[ExI] teachers

[efc at swisscows.email]

>From my position as a teacher it is pretty easy to spot the difference 
since many students don't even bother to change the output.

Most just put the raw output of a chat gpt question in a document and 
present it as their own, so when 70-100% of the text is the same, it is 
easy to slap a cheat label on them.

The same for coding assignments when you can get 10-15 students with the 
exact same variable names, structure, and order of calls.

But... a highly motivated cheater who actually applies some intelligence 
to the task will of course be able to cheat way more easily.

Best regards,
Daniel


On Sun, 28 Jan 2024, Will Steinberg via extropy-chat wrote:

> The updated Turing test should see whether a computer can make true Art.
> 
> It’s no surprise that AI excels in optimizing derivative content—that’s what it is made to do.  School essays already may as well be
> copies of one another, made according to algorithms.  Is it really shocking at all that AI can pump out the same commodified crap
> people already do—essays, ad copy, tutorials, illustrations, web design?
> 
> When an AI can create *of its own volition* works of art that hang in museums, then it passes the test.
> 
> AI can already be used by skilled humans to make true Art, but when it makes some itself then I’ll be convinced
> 
> On Thu, Aug 24, 2023 at 10:58 AM Gregory Jones via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       BillW's question regarding the instructor's task of distinguishing between a student and AI puts a final nail in the
>       coffin of Turing's test.  Artificial intelligence is able create an illusion of consciousness so convincing, we are still
>       debating if it really is the real thing, all while failing to adequately define precisely what we mean by "real." 
> spike
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
>