It was used in schools…
Congratulations, you just created a generation of children who will never truly trust authority figures.
On social media the standard is to call everything AI by default. It’s nearly impossible to prove otherwise before people lose interest in the thread, so you can feel right every time. Nothing but win!
deleted by creator
Oh god. And this was mostly used against kids.
yeah, and that should horrify you: because Western anti-AI hysteria is deeply rooted in a fascist cultural obsession with “ownership” of thoughts and ideas.
who the fuck cares if you used an AI tool to do work?
a decently designed course in academia won’t be something you can just “cheat” on. there’s this implication that the behavior is somehow the responsibility of the student body, so much so they should be punished for it; when there is no accountability for the professors and educators who actually design a shit-ass curriculum that makes students engage in these behaviors rather than actually learning. students are the victims here, not academia. academic dishonesty policies assume there is some massive contingent of students trying to “cheat the system” at all times and thus we must rabidly defend academia from it, as if she is some virgin maid. that isn’t true. the vast majority of students do not cheat. self-reported rates of cheating remain at a constant 25-35% of the student body over large periods of time. why? because it’s a myth. there aren’t large numbers of people trying to “defraud” academia. sure, it happens, but is it enough to justify the many more lives that are ruined by frivolous accusations?
i would cite case studies but literally it is so fucking common just google search and take your pick for whatever story tickles your exact rhetorical mindset.
and no, i’m not some “cheater” myself trying to defend academic dishonesty. i’ve played by the rules my entire academic career and im not gonna sit and be strawmanned bc i happen to notice the absolutely fucking egregious grifts and power imbalances that compose the modern academy. these people will charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars and then treat you worse than a fucking minimum wage mcdonald’s employee might treat the customers. it’s absolutely fucked in every way, they are enemies to education and human knowledge. education is important, knowledge should be FREE for everyone no matter what!
you should be pissed that these people masquerade as intellectuals when they’re nothing more than cowards trying to steal opportunity from the youth. it is not the place of the teacher to be the arbiter of discipline, that is the most heinous misreading of pedagogical principles and the fact that it has been allowed to go on for so long is a large part of why we sit here at the precipice of a new mass genocide, with thousands of ignorant fools clamoring it on or being willfully blind to it happening.
I asked Chatty for a TL;DR:
Western fear of AI comes from a fascist obsession with “owning” ideas. Using AI isn’t a big deal — if students can “cheat,” it’s because courses are badly designed, not because students are inherently dishonest. Most students don’t cheat; the narrative that they do is exaggerated to justify punishing them unfairly. Academia exploits students, charging massive fees while offering poor educational value and using dishonesty accusations to control them. Education should be free and empowering, not a tool for gatekeeping and oppression. The current system betrays the purpose of education and contributes to larger societal decline.
I think you went a bit too far. Most of this is also only accurate for the US.
the problem with your response isn’t that you used AI, it’s that you attempt to use it in place of your own agency and intellectual ability instead of as a supplement to it.
correct me if i’m wrong but it seems like the idea here is that you want me to point out how clearly piss-poor your response is and then flip it back on me to say “HA you’re a HYPOCRITE!! SEE! AI IS BAAAaaaaAAaDDDdD!!!”
students in the 2000s copying and pasting things mindlessly into Google and thoughtlessly regurgitating strings they find online were engaging in genuine academically dishonest behavior. that isn’t because search engines are bad though, plenty of people used Google honestly, and I think anyone with a fucking brain can see that. so, why then, do people wanna make the same stupid-ass argument when it comes to AI? are you so fucking swept up in the zeitgeist as to not see your own hypocrisy?
like I said, all straw and no fucking man is what you people are.
and, if I am misreading your intentions here, which is assuredly possible… then I refer back to my initial statement in this reply.
bUt ThE wEsT iS 'mUrIcA!
The worst part is they may weasel out of it. If the claim was “it detects 98% of AI generated samples” it could do that while having a high false positive rate. I hate this timelime.
I have a competing technology that is nearly as accurate. For only $50 I’ll send you this device that you will have unlimited license usage rights to. While not 53% accurate like my competitor, its proven by scientific studies to be 50% accurate. I also offer volume discounts if you buy 10 the price drops to only $45 per device. Sign up now!
https://apnews.com/article/trump-penny-treasury-mint-192e3b9ad9891d50e7014997653051ba
Trump says he has directed US Treasury to stop minting new pennies, citing rising cost
Wait, he actually did something good?
That is supposed to be reliable? It doesn’t even have a subscription service.
Actually is 51% favouring the side facing up when flipped
That’s easy to fix. Just randomize it. Flip a coin to see which side faces up.
Shhh! We’re releasing that accuracy update in the next version of the product. We need to sell through our existing inventory of the less accurate ones.
53% is abysmal, it might as well be a coin flip. FYI this article is about a random one called BrandWell, popular AI detectors like GPTZero are much more accurate.
All of it is snake oil, it’s fundamentally not possible to detect ai generated text without watermarking it first.
Much more accurate than guessing is not a strong endorsement.
54% of the time it’s right 98% of the time
“They’ve done studies you know. 53% of the time, it works 98% of the time.”
