←back to thread

427 points JumpCrisscross | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.287s | source
Show context
rowanG077 ◴[] 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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41897434[source]
> the teacher can produce no proof

For an assignment completed at home, on a student's device using software of a student's choosing, there can essentially be no proof. If the situation you describe becomes common, it might make sense for a school to invest into a web-based text editor that capture keystrokes and user state and requiring students use that for at-home text-based assignments.

That or eliminating take-home writing assignments--we had plenty of in-class writing when I went to school.

replies(2): >>41897955 #>>41902718 #
zelphirkalt ◴[] No.41902718[source]
That will be a dystopia. If I were a student still, I would rather go to the university physically, than install spyware on my computer, that only incidentally reports to the university, but its main purpose will be collecting my personal data for some greedy commercial business. No thank you.

That, or the uni shall give me a separate machine to write on, only for that purpose.

replies(1): >>41905916 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.41905916[source]
> I would rather go to the university physically, than install spyware on my computer

Well yes, in-person proctored is the gold standard. For those who can’t or won’t go in person, something invasive is really the only alternative to entirely exam-based scoring.