In an online discussion post, Alcorn State University history professor Dr. Jason Gibson posed a question that represented part of his students’ midterm. It was about the…
How stupid are these kids to not even check the answer? That’s the biggest issue here lol
Well, it’s always the stupid ones, that’s why stuff like this is effective. You will never catch a good student cheating with that method
Some people are too smart to fall for it, and dumb people know they’re dumb, so they don’t try, because they know they’ll get caught.
You need those special ones who are too dumb to actually learn, but still think they are smart enough to outsmart a system that is beyond the comprehension of their puny minds. In other words, MAGAs.
Sounds like middle management, too. Wanting to take credit for the work of others.
Its complacency, which is the worst thing to be engendering in the next generation.
Get them to the point that they don’t know how to study or struggle, and you have a whole generation relying on your shitty LLM, and the dumber you are the less you know what you don’t know until it’s telling you what plants crave, sponsored by brawndo
Removed by mod
It’s the human condition.
What a waste of money. Why go to school if you’re just going to use AI? What are you paying for?
University degrees serve at least two functions.
One function is a sort of guarantee that you have the knowledge and skills of the particular degrees you obtain.
The other function is to show that you are the kind of person who gets university degrees… whether that is because you are competent or just that you come from a socio-economic background that values university degrees nad can afford them.
For that second function cheating matters very little if you don’t get caught.
For the first function, it might also not be super relevant. I had to take a humanities class for my computer science degree. If I had cheated on the theater exam it would not have made me a worse programmer. 😄
To your last paragraph: Yes and no. It’s not only the material that is taught, but also the approaches that you learn while dealing with it.
If you cheated on the theater exam, and masterfully didn’t get caught. On paper: great. In reality: social settings might be harder to deal with, because you would approach them in the same way. Just it’s not visible on paper.
If you didnt cheat and flunked: You’re a programmer who can stamp out code, and most likely unable to deal with anything else at work that is more theatrical than cold hard logic and math.
I always saw education (and most intelligent people do corroborate as well) as a training ground, not entirely for the substance taught, but to show that you can deal with it (your function 2, but more in the sense, given such problems, you will know how to approach them, and where to look for knowledge, because nobody remembers everything).
Ah I had a different perspective in school. I had the guidance counselors sell me on how useful each class would be before I gave them my hard earned money. It’s expensive so I only wanted to buy valuable lessons.
A piece of paper you can get in front of your parents, then wipe your ass with.
Getting practice at ctrl-C, ctrl-V?
The piece of paper that companies keep demanding you have, despite their AI black box always filtering you out for hyper specific and arbitrary reasons?
The real answer is they’re probably just lazy, but I wouldn’t blame anyone who doesn’t really value the work that goes into their degrees and diplomas anymore (not that I’m against post-secondary education, though)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
especially when his parents excellent test scores are added in
…what? 🤔
Sounds like AI.
Oh no, that is super fucking lazy (I’m not even sure the word for it is lazy…), they are literally copying the assignment statement into an LLM, pasting the answer without reviewing it (not even the slightest curiosity about what was written?) and they’re done?
Headline should be 90% of students. I assumed the class was much larger and only 32 used AI. 90% is fucked.
Why not just say “32 of 35 students”?
Only 32 got caught using AI
meh, I disagree. I think using a percentage in that way implies a larger sample size
deleted by creator
This is hysterical. Like the cheaters couldn’t even be bothered to proof read what the AI wrote to make sure it was correct.
In my experience “AI”-users aren’t very literate.
There have to be at least a couple that can’t read.
People are dumb. People will always be dumb, there’s no getting away from it.
We are just apes after all.
Yes, but school is there to teach you to use brain. Why go school if no use brain?
“You have to go to college to get a good job”
Goodhart’s law: When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.
Used to be that a college degree indicated people with time, money, and drive to put four years into study. It was a good measure of the “right” kind of person. Now it’s just another job requirement and doesn’t indicate anything.
It was a good measure of the “right” kind of person.
Long ago, a college education used to assure that you were white, male, Protestant, at least upper middle class, and at least semi-literate (assuming you managed to at least get Gentleman’s C’s, so the required “drive” was minimal if you were from the right family). Admission was much more of a sure thing for the offspring of alumni.
And that was what was necessary to join a business at that time: respectability and clubbability.
A minimum admission requirement regarding academic performance was made more prominent as other acceptance criteria were broadened, but most private universities will still give an easy ride to legacies and to the offspring of large donors.
Now it’s just another job requirement and doesn’t indicate anything.
Well, you’re generally expected not only to have a degree, but one in a relevant field of study, and to have gotten good grades. And most of the big-name high-tech firms won’t generally accept a degree from any but a few globally prominent universities. They go by brand as much as by objective criteria of performance. That’s the new clubbability filter. Someone who cut-and-pasted AI slop at Stanford has a much better shot at a job than someone who did real work at Podunk State.
My first job required a bachelor’s degree because AND I QUOTE “So we know you can read and write in English”
Hmm… I wonder how they’d feel about my Bachelor’s in Spanish Language and Culture.
Why pay astronomical tuition, room and board, textbooks, all of it, just to learn nothing and use chat got. The bottom of the article said a professor at Brown thought all but 2 of his students cheated. At Brown. We’re so fucked.
These selective colleges aren’t about education, they’re about getting you into a club with the other assholes that likely cheated their way through business school and got jobs the same way.
Same with private high schools in the us. They aren’t teaching kids to read, math or think, they’re teaching them that being born rich means you get to be in charge of the plebs (which includes the professors and instructors at these institutions).
Networking matters. I went to an academically rigorous private university, but not one the better-known ones. I graduated during a recession and had plenty of doors slammed in my face. But one of my professors who liked my work had an old friend from Harvard who was a hiring manager at an important nearby company. The letter of reference he wrote to his friend got me in the door. I rose fast in the company after that, because I’m a quick study and actually knew how to do things. But I probably wouldn’t have gotten in without that string having been pulled.
I’m on the other side of the spectrum. No relevant degree in my field, no certifications, just real world experience. I rose very quickly too.
I also haven’t really seen real world effects of networking with anyone I know. Lots of people join college clubs, go to networking events, etc. but when they need a job or a lawyer or something they get the same rates as everyone else. Maybe it’s just my friends though.
Networking is the only way I got hired at my company. Networking is the best way to move up in the company. Networking is the ONLY way to move past a certain level in the company. Networking is the way I ensure the people I hire onto my team are going to work out, as opposed to relying an hour long interview plus reading a resume.
Teenagers aren’t really known for making great decisions.
Source: was once a teenager, made bad decisions.
It’s much more fun making bad decisions when you’re a septuagenarian.
Because forced by society machine
It’s not that we’re solely dumb and incapable of intelligence, it’s that many, if not most, will seek the solution with the lowest energy required. In turn, AI is creating a spiraling of learning and knowledge acquisition.
Who knows where civilization lands in 20 years.
You haven’t ran into someone doing this on work emails?
They don’t read the full email they get, just far enough to see if they got what they want. Then they plug it into an AI, and tell it to respond, then copy/paste it back to Outlook and hit reply.
They’ll keep doing that, over and over. And it usually ends up with them insisting on a meeting to “discuss” where they essentially get in a loop of “it’ll work, just do it”
And it’s like pulling fucking teeth to get them to admit the only thing they’re basing that on, is a chatbot told them it would work.
People are worried about the kids, and we should be, but it rotted adults brains even faster, and because of their age they’ve got a much shorter clock to stop using it before effects are permanent. Couple with Covid related IQ drops and the fact that time is linear and we’ll keep getting older…
Society is fucked.
We need to seriously treat AI like an addictive drug that people aren’t capable of limiting themselves with.
I don’t need to use AI to not read my colleagues’ emails
They don’t either, that is the neat part. AI will step in and answer the email for both parties which neither will care about or read.
but it rotted adults brains even faster, and because of their age they’ve got a much shorter clock to stop using it before effects are permanent.
Look here, I’m an adult who uses AI all the time and you need to understand that the people of Madagascar waft blissfully through the tropical waters en masse.
Yeah, now I’m imagining the smell of vanilla. Thanks for that.
Thanks. This + OP has given me an idea. In going to add white text before my signature. Something along the Madagascar lines, or maybe just to agree with my email and and the conversation.
They’ll keep doing that, over and over. And it usually ends up with them insisting on a meeting to “discuss” where they essentially get in a loop of “it’ll work, just do it”
And it’s like pulling fucking teeth to get them to admit the only thing they’re basing that on, is a chatbot told them it would work.
Strange. I am experiencing the same. In one case, I had to make, after six months of discussing an interface, an end-to-end test to show it didn’t work and their, ahem, unit tests failed to show that. That was for a stepper motor interface and driver with three essential methods.
This guy is senior software architect at my workplace.
Boss insisting that I get to an agreement with him on ai usage.
Boss insisting that I get to an agreement with him on ai usage.
Because most bosses don’t understand if one person is using a bunch of AI, that almost always means everyone else is spending a lot of time behind the scenes making it workable.
They want AI to cut workers, so one worker using AI and touching a lot of things looks great…
As long as the other humans are there to clean up the mess, the AI users appears super productive.
But then when managers layoff everyone that doesn’t use AI because they’re not as productive, chickens roost and you realize no one still in the building actually knows their own work let alone the wider product
Even if caught before layoffs, by the time a worker’s over reliance on AI is noticed, that employee can often no longer function without it.
But besides all that:
Anyone that expects employers to still pay for tokens a decade from now is insane. We’re gonna see people taking 100k salary, and spend >50% of that on AI tokens themselves.
There’s no way American corporations will keep shouldering the cost, they’ll push that off onto the employees the second they can.
People who use AI to do this at work, were doing it before AI too, just manually. Half-reading emails, restating the obvious, asking off topic questions and demanding meetings without purpose has been a norm in my career field for 20 years. Especially amongst middle managers.
The difference is they’re lazy…
With AI they can “produce” and everyone else that’s lazy doesn’t notice it’s gibberish.
The only people who realize it, are the ones who were always doing the work.
Those people were usually already struggling to pick up the slack. But now all the lazy idiots reply with multiple page emails and once you’re dealing with 5-6 of them at once, it’s impossible to keep up.
It’s a literal gosh gallop attack, you can’t address all the ways everyone’s chatbot is wrong, and every email can I troduce multiple new issues while completely dropping the issue the chatbot insisted was most important.
So yeah…
The problem isn’t new, it always existed
But now the issue is 10x the volume to get cleaned up
No one here is using AI.
No one here is using AI.
I’m sure you know what you mean with “here”, but no one else does…
They’d just have to randomly make assumptions
Most people who use AI to write something can’t be bothered to make sure it is correct. It pisses me off at work so bad when someone “writes” a document or does “research” with AI and just copy pastes it into an email without actually reading to see if it makes sense.
I got so pissed of a couple months ago when people were telling me about a “great research document” that someone put together for something we had coming up that we desperately needed information about. As soon as they shared the document to me I realized it was completely AI generated and 1/3 of it didn’t make a lick of sense. I wanted to yell at the person who created it to at least take 10 minutes to delete all of the obviously incorrect crap.
You’ve hit the nail on the head. What you’re describing isn’t just laziness — it’s a fundamental breakdown of trust in the modern workplace. Let’s delve into this.
Here’s the thing: when someone copy-pastes AI output without reading it, the document was never the deliverable — the verification was the deliverable. The prose isn’t load-bearing; the checking is. A document nobody read isn’t a document — it’s a liability with formatting.
And that’s the thing, isn’t it? Is the AI actually the problem here? No — the workflow is. This genuinely comes down to ownership:
- Trust erodes silently. Every unchecked paragraph is a small withdrawal from a shared account nobody audits — until the balance is zero.
- Verification is idempotent. Ten minutes of reading costs the same whether you do it once or a hundred times — but skipping it compounds.
- The failure isn’t technical — it’s cultural. No review, no judgment, no accountability.
This is exactly the kind of thing that starts as one bad research doc and scales — from a single email, to a team norm, to an entire organization quietly outsourcing its thinking. In today’s fast-paced world, the ability to say “I read this and I stand behind it” isn’t just a soft skill — it’s a superpower, and honestly? A testament to the rich tapestry of what human-AI collaboration could be.
Ultimately, your colleague didn’t fail to use AI correctly — they failed to be the human in the loop. The tool didn’t remove their judgment. They left it at the door.
I hope this helps! Would you like me to draft a one-page best-practices memo your team can circulate? 🚀
/s in case this isn’t blatantly obvious
Ugh… I don’t know whether to upvote or downvote…
You’ve hit the nail on the head.
This phrase is VERY popular with LLMs, I’ve noticed.
That’s the joke
I haven’t seen that particular phrase singled out as being super common with LLMs before, so I was just remarking on it.
If you actually wrote this out, that’s way more effort for a bit than I would have put forth
I worked in software for, well, let’s say 20 years, at some elite places, too. And the one thing that I never understood was how few people ever bothered “to make sure it is correct,” as you put it, even before this new problem with AI. They didn’t even bother to make sure it was correct even when they wrote it themselves.
You don’t know how many times I’ve been sent a request to review code, and it should have only been like 20 lines of code, but instead it was page after page of irrelevant stuff, because they created the review from the wrong baseline. But they never even took a single look at it before they sent it to me.
So many people don’t write tests for their code that generally my biggest achievement at any given assignment was creating test frameworks that let them write tests using domain specific language, because it made it much easier. At a certain point, if it’s easy enough, even those people will write tests, especially if they know that I’ll be doing the review.
I honestly don’t see AI code as being all that different. People still don’t even do the minimum, but they just get exposed and embarrassed more easily.
The biggest lie that people tell these days is that they proofread ai content lol
Yeah but how many caught it? More than we’ll ever know
Article said 32 out of 35.
Yeah so maybe literally every student used AI but 3 read the output before submitting.
That happens with classes like history or philosophy, the ones that are considered to be mostly useless blablabla.
You… Think the entire subjects of history and philosophy are “useless blablabla?” That is certainly an opinion to have.
deleted by creator
Those being treated as useless (goes back to No Child) is the fucking problems
Humans are not innately moral, someone needs to teach them that shit, that’s what history and philosophy is for
(goes back to No Child)
In the US, that shit goes back at least to the GI Bill post-WW2 and the Cold War STEM obsession that took root after the Soviets launched Sputnick. For better or worse, and to be clear a very real portion of it was for worse, before that time College or University was a finishing school, hopefully to include intellectual development, for future elites. Well-read, well-rounded and well-spoken were the expectation, and it was a ticket to opportunities.
After the war, we simply adapted the existing educational infrastructure to a vastly expanded audience who were now told that some degree was the ticket to any promising white-collar career; teachers colleges, technical colleges, and completely new institutions all moved to a model based on the prominent pre-war universities, but with very different “customers”. The students were there to get a professional credential, not to secure social cachet. The democratization of higher education was very real, but the number of people who needed to be college graduates far outstripped the number who wanted to think deeply about literature, history, and philosophy (or at least the number of people who understood that pretending to do so was part of the social contract).
Then, to make sure we didn’t fall behind the Commies, as many resources, financial and social, as possible were poured into STEM programs. This was again within this same “University” paradigm, so students who had no particular desire to study history or philosophy were being required to do so, but 95%+ of the institutional and cultural signals they got told them this was busy work required by ivory towered non-entities who didn’t do anything “real.”
The humanities professors and department chairs see all this too, so they take steps to avoid making waves and keep their jobs, and keep their departments as healthy as possible. Undergraduate coursework, both the assignments and the expectations, gets watered down, especially for GenEd required courses. There’s genuine stuff to unpack as to why, how, and how much STEM kids and jobseeking kids should be required to study the humanities after high school (Peter Thiel comes to mind as someone who maaaaybe should have avoided college level philosophy courses), but the particular way it went down in the US was not very healthy. Ironically, in fighting to preserve the vestiges of a liberal-arts education, its defenders may have undercut its perception.
They are useless. History is useless by definition; and philosophy has reached the peak of its usefulness somewhere in the middle of the XIX century and can’t do better anymore. Like alchemy, which was useful at some point.
Often, people who say that philosophy and the study of history are useless endeavours are hoping for the resurrection of some historical philosophy or another and they don’t want people to find out how and why it failed.
Are you one of those people?
That’s strange logic. I just want people to analyze the current situation with modern tools, not referring to some ancient legends.
What makes something useful to you? Does it need to be something done or learned purely for the sake of profits? Does it need to be cold and unfeeling data for it to matter?
That’s the question I can’t answer. Really, I can’t formulate a really nice definition of usefulness. But still I can’t think of any use for history. Except maybe fun as in “literature”. But being fun doesn’t justify its teaching at school. Drinking alcohol is fun too, but…
This is absurd. You don’t think there’s anything important that we can learn from our past and apply toward our future?
Time changes. Cultures, laws… Absolutely all that changes. Data, that history gathers, can’t be used for prediction. At least the precision won’t be better than if you will just analyze your current situation. Absurd is trying to predict the future from fairy tails about kings and dragons.
History serves as a record for the decisions of those who came before us. I believe it matters so that we can learn something from both the mistakes and the pivotal moments of the past.
Personally, I was convinced about just how much history mattered when I took a class on it taught by a veteran. The way we avoid making poor decisions -decisions which bring about the premature deaths of countless young men and the innocent, through acts of war - is by learning from our past and looking for a better path.
Philosophy matters for the same reasons, imo. If we are not taught how to reason, how can we expect to live a life that has any meaning or purpose? Both for ourselves and for others. If we’re not taught how to see through the dangers and misdirection of logical fallacies, for instance, we can more easily be bought into a lie or blame a scapegoat for all of our problems.
Regardless of what history is being taught, people like you often forget that the goal is to also help you develop your brain.
There are many other actually useful studies for that. Math excels in that.
Math doesn’t really train your memory as much as learning history does.
Oh, that’s nitpicking. Study chemistry or biology. Those have much things to memorize where logic wouldn’t help you much.
People not paying attention in history class is why it keeps also being future class.
And people not paying attention in philosophy class is why most of the world is ignoring the far-reaching ethical implications of the LLM boom until their own electricity and water disappear.
Here saved you a click and and badly written “article”
In an online discussion post, Alcorn State University history professor Dr. Jason Gibson posed a question that represented part of his students’ midterm. It was about the Industrial Revolution, but knowing how many students now rely solely on artificial intelligence for their answers, he secretly embedded instructions telling the AI to include information about Madagascar in a way that makes no sense.
Being written in white text meant the instructions were invisible.
(…)
Had any of these cheaters even bothered to check what the AI had generated, they’d likely have noticed the strange references to the island country constantly appearing in an essay about the Industrial Revolution.
Lol? How is the article badly written? Also it’s like 3 paragraphs long and took me 60 seconds to read. Pretending that’s impossible is almost as bad as using AI to cheat on an exam.
It reads like a Facebook post, which IMO makes it poorly written
I don’t know that the article was all that badly written, but you missed a couple of points that I’d call essential:
One, it was 32 students out of 35 total who used AI and then didn’t even bother to check it, so only 3 students even made an honest attempt in the entire semester.
Two, the professor told the students that they were allowed to contest the grade if they wanted, and only 2 out of the 32 students even tried to contest it.
Also later in the article it mentions another professor who estimated that only 2 of their 86 students didn’t use AI to cheat.
Like, what are we even doing any more?
I don’t know that the article was all that badly written
Really? I thought it read like a Facebook post.
Regarding specific numbers, I guess they add context to severity, but as far as the headline and snippet of the OP my short snippet answers the bullshit clickbait, which was my intention.
I thought it read like a clickbait article that just quoted verbatim from the social media posts. But I didn’t watch the videos, so I don’t know how much the article writer left out or added to the story.
I knew things were bad, but this bad?
Earlier this month, a professor at Brown University saw midterm averages jump from the typical range of 65% to 80% to 96% after he allowed take-home exams. He estimated that all but two of his 86 students used AI to cheat.
Ehhhh.
Even without AI. A at home exam is just begging for ones to cheat.
Flight instructor here:
I kept having to undo the damage that academia did to my flight students, because looking things up to make sure you knew it right felt like “cheating” to them. So. Many. People have acadotrauma, y’all. Do you know how often I had to resort to behaviorism models to convince grown ass men it’s okay to be seen using a checklist? I had to ask our chief pilot to watch me do ground procedures on an airplane in front of the student to establish it as a norm. You know, the way they trained Alex the parrot to talk. Because a checklist is a piece of paper with the answers on it and we hurt people for having those. Same with writing down frequencies. What? You’re going to memorize the A/FD?
Or would it be edutrauma?
I see the same thing in the software industry. Programming is something where it’s perfectly common to need to have cheat sheets at your desk and reference the documentation regularly. But freshly graduated students think that’s cheating. They’re convinced they need to memorise all aspects of a programming language and it’s standard library. The amount of new information I take in every day, it would be impossible to remember everything. The real skill is information retrieval, being able to look up what you need to know when you need it.
deleted by creator
I’m sure you could probably dig up an exception or two, but by and large “using tools to trace real-life objects and photographs” isn’t an accurate portrayal of the sort of thing that gets people flak online. Every tracing scandal I’ve seen on tumblr is an artist essentially plagiarising work from another artist in the same community.
It’s the difference between “my character is shooting a bow in this panel, let’s find some references for archery poses so I can get it right” versus “oh hey that’s a cool picture someone drew of an archer, I think I’ll trace it and fill in my character’s face and colours instead and post it online and pretend like I made it all myself without crediting the person who actually did 99% of the creative process”
deleted by creator
Yep. I always thought open book tests are the best.
Otherwise if you read it but can’t memorize it, gl.
If you did the work or can find the answer quickly without having done the work /studied, you’ll do okay in the real world too, because you have those skills to figure out the correct answer quickly.
Sure…when someone has crashed with no heartbeat in the ER, just ask Grok.
Some professions, like ER doctor, require a high level of memorization. But that’s also part of medical training.
Others don’t need that level of memorization, even other kinds of doctors. I’ve seen medical specialists in private practice leave the exam room to look up symptoms to help make a diagnosis. And I think that’s a good idea, since only TV doctors can “know” everything about incredibly rare diseases.
Til grok is a book
Depends on the exam though. I’ve got ones that made me wish they only do in class tests.
deleted by creator
The professor doesn’t understand that those students are exactly what capitalism demands as the next employees. Every single one of them will be keeping our economies afloat with their reliance on AI
Every single one of them will be keeping our economies afloat with their reliance on AI
They will keep the AI economy afloat and the expense of all other economies. We are already seeing this.
The subject of the essay being the industrial revolution seems apt. Or is it ironic?
seriously, why aren’t all tests being done in person at this point?
A lot of classes aren’t in person any more.
I suppose schools could force online classes to test in person, but they seem to favor shitty proctoring and anti-cheating software instead.
Almost a decade ago, I took a physics course online through my local community college. They made me take the final on-site in a secure testing facility, using their computer with a locked-down browser and a human to verify my identity.
If that was standard operating procedure for a community college a decade ago, I’m surprised that it’s not more universal at this point.
The problem was students insisted on lecture notes given to them. So…either we had a huge leap in human intelligence or most of my class cheated 2024, 2025. 5 A students never showed up. My colleagues in the US say it’s even worse. 2026 is back to the future: no shared lecture slides, 30% of lectures in chalk, no reading of notes in flipped instruction, quizzes on paper, no electronics allowed. Show up, take notes or flunk. I predict most students will drop the course in the first week. We have to do this because AI students are getting kicked out of graduate and medical schools in unprecedented numbers because eventually faking it bites them in the ass. High schools are encouraging getting a high number in courses by any means.
Most universities have been parasitised by a quality control department that insists “assessment should be authentic and accessible”.
In short, profs are forced to have heavy credit bearing coursework that students almost all cheat on.
32 out of the 35 students across two classes simply copied the question, pasted it into a chatbot, then copy and pasted its output into the answer window
So, 3 students proofread the output and removed the offending sentences from their answer?
3 of 35 is not an unreasonable number of students who might have actually done the work themselves.
It’s also a reasonable number of students who would read the answer before just blindly putting it into the answer sheet.
And this is the contemporary teacher’s dilemma. Which is it? Did they do the work themselves, or did they simply proofread the machine’s work? Those skills are not the same.
One is evidence that they understood and synthesized the information. The other is evidence that they could identify literal nonsense and remove it from their answer.
“Madagascar floats sideways through the afternoon.”
That’s the most aesthetic I’ve ever seen captured in a sentence.
Madagascar floats
Sideways through the afternoon
Detecting A. I.
Makes me think of Douglas Adams
Madagascar hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t
In the beginning, Madagascar was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Sure enough, 32 out of the 35 students across two classes simply copied the question, pasted it into a chatbot, then copy and pasted its output into the answer window.
That’s an insanely high proportion. I don’t think I’ve ever cheated on an exam or assignment, so the concept seems kind of weird to me.
I wonder if some of the remaining people used AI but then reviewed the output and removed the weird stuff, or if they wrote it themselves.
The students cheating are only making the people with preAI degrees more desirable.
“What sets you apart from the others?”
- “My degree is pre AI so you know I didn’t cheat”
There was still cheating but at least it was more effort than this.
Yeah back in my day, cheating meant getting a copy of last year’s test and memorizing the answers. At least you still learned something!
That was never cheating.
What don’t get is how they didn’t see the “invisible” text when they were copying it to paste it into the AI. Any tool I’ve ever used to select and copy text highlights it in a way that would show the “invisible” part. Was the question just so long that they could easily miss it?
I love the story but I’m a little skeptical just because of this one detail.
There’s a video in the article that shows it. He put the prompt at the end of a bullet point, but still in the middle of the block of text. Very easy to miss if you’re selecting all.
Probably they did ctrl+a or just dragged the mouse all the way down without looking
I went to college in 90 and its kinda a wierd time as not to long before people would ask if you where going to college but by that time it was where you were going to college. So it was just as going to college was sorta expected. I too am blown away by that number of students but I think im thinking more of my major area where people genuinely (I think) were mostly motivated to learn about it and do it as a career. Myself I really did like the liberal arts education so was by and large equally avid in non majors classes. Thing is since then college has just become more and more this forgone conclusion and the pressure to be in a major that results in a career that pays over what one is interested in, I think is much higher. So I guess im not surprised. We really need people to be able to work and make enough to have a family on a single income without going to college (heck you can’t even do that going to college now) or this stuff is just going to get worse.
