If you remove the mention of AI from this post, the authors process and setup of the notice to students is absolutely mental. The intentions might be good, but damn if this isn’t a comically inept way to set up a kafkaesque nightmare rather than a place for actual learning. The defensive attitude doesn’t help either. Just the sheer energy that went into all the steps mentioned here, not invested in any even superficial attempt to perhaps adapt. That isn’t to “give into AI” or cheating, but if 50% of students break your rules, more rules and litigation about the rules are not the next step to take.

> Second, while the percentage of students identified was substantial, it was still less than 50%.

No doubt the student body will learn this lesson, and in the future the number of students identified as having cheated will be near zero.

Wow, universities still teach deprecated programming languages.