| ▲ | skissane 7 hours ago |
| Someone I know is a high school English teacher (being vague because I don’t want to cause them trouble or embarrassment). They told me they were asking ChatGPT to tell them whether their students’ creative writing assignments were AI-generated or not-I pointed out that LLMs such as ChatGPT have poor reliability at this; classifier models trained specifically for this task perform somewhat better, yet also have their limitations. In any event, if the student has access to whatever model the teacher is using to test for AI-generation (or even comparable models), they can always respond adversarially by tinkering with an AI-generated story until it is no longer classified as AI-generated |
|
| ▲ | frenchtoast8 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| A New York lawyer used ChatGPT to write a filing with references to fake cases. After a human told him they were hallucinated, he asked ChatGPT if that was true (which said they were real cases). He then screenshotted that answer and submitted it to the judge with the explanation "ChatGPT ... assured the reliability of its content." https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63107798/54/mata-v-avia... (pages 19, 41-43) |
| |
|
| ▲ | techjamie 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Reminds me of a Reddit story that made the rounds about a professor asking ChatGPT if it wrote papers, to which it frequently responded afirmatively. He sent an angry email about it, and a student responded by showing a response from ChatGPT claiming it wrote his email. |
| |
| ▲ | gblargg 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > student responded by showing a response from ChatGPT claiming it wrote his email Which is actually fine. Students need to do their own homework. A teacher can delegate writing emails. | | |
| ▲ | recursive 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But if he didn't delegate, and it said he did, that would suggest that the methodology doesn't really work. | |
| ▲ | gblargg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apologies to everyone I upset by this comment. It was just an innocent mis-reading of the joke. Lesson learned. | |
| ▲ | arcanemachiner 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I believe you just got whooshed. | | |
| ▲ | gblargg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, I missed the student using the teacher's trust in those tools to make them even more angry and neuter their angry email that they (probably) actually wrote themselves. Well-played. | |
| ▲ | MengerSponge 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | A person arguing in favor of LLM use failed to comprehend the context or argument? Unpossible! | | |
| ▲ | gblargg 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think I was arguing for LLMs. I wish nobody used them. But the argument against a student using it for assignments is significantly different than that against people in general using them. It's similar to using a calculator or asking someone else for the answer: fine normally but not if the goal is to demonstrate that you learned/know something. I admit I missed the joke. I read it as the usual "you hypocrite teacher, you don't want us using tools but you use them" argument I see. There's no need to be condescending towards me for that. I see now that the "joke" was about the unreliability of AI checkers and making the teacher really angry by suggesting that their impassioned email wasn't even their writing, bolstered by their insistence that checkers are reliable. |
|
| |
| ▲ | weird-eye-issue 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You missed the entire point lol | | |
| ▲ | gblargg 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, I'm really sorry. I didn't realize it would upset so many people. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | ikr678 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Students (and some of my coworkers) are now learning new content by reading AI generated text. Of course when tested on this, they are going to respond in the style of AI. |
