(www.bloomberg.com)

427 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | 20 Oct 24 17:26 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Show context

rowanG077 ◴[20 Oct 24 18:16 UTC] No.41897344[source]▶

This has nothing to do with AI, but rather about proof. If a teacher said to a student you cheated and the student disputes it. Then in front of the dean or whatever the teacher can produce no proof of course the student would be absolved. Why is some random tool (AI or not) saying they cheated without proof suddenly taken as truth?

replies(4): >>41897406 #>>41897434 #>>41897477 #>>41897586 #

underseacables ◴[20 Oct 24 18:35 UTC] No.41897477[source]▶

>>41897344 #

Universities don't exactly decide guilt by proof. If their system says you're guilty, that's pretty much it.

replies(2): >>41897540 #>>41897818 #

1. borski ◴[20 Oct 24 19:22 UTC] No.41897818[source]▶

>>41897477 #

Source? I was accused of a couple things (not plagiarism) at my university and was absolutely allowed to present a case, and due to a lack of evidence it was tossed and never spoken of again.

So no, you don’t exactly get a trial by a jury of your peers, but it isn’t like they are averse to evidence being presented.

This evidence would be fairly trivial to refute, but I agree it is a burden no student needs or wants.

↑

Do AI detectors work? Students face false cheating accusations