• danzania@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Students are now prompting the AI to make it sound like a student wrote it, or putting it through an AI detector and changing the parts that are detected as being written by AI (adding typos or weird grammar, say). Even kids who write their own papers have to do the latter sometimes.

    • mineralfellow@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Perfect grammar and slightly unusual words in a paragraph. Could be a weird formulation from a student’s mind, could be AI. No way to really know.

      • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        If the peer review are unable to differentiate between student output and AI output then they are either incompetent or they are inundated with absolute garbage. The latter also suggests the former is true.

        • mineralfellow@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 days ago

          I just finished marking student reports. There are some sections clearly written without AI, some that clearly are written by AI, and then some sections where the ideas are correct, the grammar is perfect, and it is on topic, but it doesn’t seem like it is written in the student’s voice. Could be AI, could be a friend editing, could be plagiarism, could be written long before or after the surrounding paragraphs. It is not always obvious, and the edge cases are the problem.

      • Lodespawn@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Yeah given the quality of AI outputs they could just read the papers to spot it … you know … do their jobs? I mean there’s a few layers here for thesis review, the supervisor, the professor, the other peer reviewers. They are all supposed to review the paper and at least some of the data that led to its production.