jwmgregory

you're right to point to that hole in my rhetoric.

truthfully, it is a number i remember seeing widely cited while researching the topic years ago and i don't have an immediate source to offer you. it largely comes out of studies around the late 80s through the early 00s; and it comes, for the most part, from studies that focused on narrow, immediate groups. think asking students currently taking or freshly out of a course about integrity. more recent research in this field shows that over a lifetime the vast majority of people engage in academically dishonest behaviors at least once and the research tends to focus on that, which is why you tend to see very high numbers reported: they have the caveat of the scope being expanded to lifetimes or careers rather than more momentary snapshots. because basically everyone has done it at some point, statistically speaking. maybe try looking for modern research focusing on serial cheating. those numbers tend to be more in line with the older figures i mention. whether or not that is ethically/statistically significant or not is up to the reader, obviously. i think it is a shift in methodology that looks at flashier and bigger percentages for dubious reasons, personally.

i will make an effort to find you specific sources when i get some time either today or tomorrow but for now you can likely find many of these figures cited by searching for the journal of academic ethics using ERIC, focusing on earlier sources to find the methodology behind the mythical "25-35%" idea. you will also see more modern research that paints a general picture showing academic integrity is more a systemic issue than an individual moral failing, which seems to be scholarly consensus at this point although I won't make that claim outright because it isn't my field. i admire you wanting to seek out sources and verify information, sorry if i wasn't helpful enough in the immediate now! i will either edit this comment or make a new one so you get the ping once i find specific sources to share to help your research. for now, i hope the ERIC query i provided is a good enough jumping off point.

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.

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 know no good people named shuhsha, and one bad one, therefore we should fucking find and kill them, lock you up and let you suffer the most inhumane fate known to mankind.

yeah it sounds pretty stupid?

or are you different? this isn’t a real argument, it’s in bad faith as a matter of category.

man i’ll stop feeding the troll but whoever you are i hope you know you’re stupid, vile fucking human garbage and partly responsible for the destruction of western society, not whatever weird bizzaro rhetoric you might have in turn to explain why it isn’t “like the good ol days”.

i’d type more but im frankly not even sure you can fucking read, idiot. lmfao.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edgelord

yeah because that’s their one and only trick.

works surprisingly well, tho.

or, ya know, you and people like you are & always have been gigantic blights on the ass cheek of human civilization.

ooooOOOO now i’m discriminating against YOU how dare I???

actually in theory yes any catholic can be pope.

in practice, however…

you work in technology, presumably. so you’re supposedly an engineer of sorts.

what kind of engineer says obviously wrong statements based on their feelings?

i’m willing to provide different sources and discussion if you object to that one for some reason but virtually all facets of research agree current artificial intelligence performance is nothing like what you are suggesting. what you’re claiming just isn’t true and you are spreading misinformation. it’s okay to be scared but it’s not okay to lie.

no. my point is that the world we live in now is the one you are describing. if rich people are the only ones able to afford litigation to support their copyright, then it might as well only exist for them. they do own everything, with the way things currently work.

the solution is, yes, crazily enough not attaching an arbitrary monetary value to information that is fundamentally free to produce and distribute.

you’re brainwashed, man.

why do i have a feeling if i asked you to tell me what hallucinations are in a technical sense i would get a regurgitated answer from google?

being blind to the obvious doesn’t help anyone, man. anyone who has genuinely worked on or even just with these tools knows that they are capable of producing quality outputs. sometimes they mess up, sure, but it also can work 1000000x faster than you can. the energy problem in turn is a valid discussion but this is just being oblivious to the obvious.

why do you guys all mistake the climate of early tech adoption as an indicator of the technology itself being bad? were you not alive for the rise of the internet or something? i think you guys all just hate corporatism, not AI, but for some reason can’t take the logical step to that conclusion.

you’re not going to get anywhere with these people.

i’m fairly certain most people are much too threatened on a fundamental level by these technologies to be rational about it. we can sit here throwing data and studies at them if we want, showing they are objectively wrong but it won’t do anything effectual.

the way i see people like this discussing the technology reminds me a lot of schoolyard behavior. the feelings it inspires in them are too much to discretely express so we get obviously incorrect quips and jabs instead of thoughtful discussion, to the roar of the crowd