Ai detectors suck

[u/Prs8863765]

Me and my Tutor worked on the whole essay and my teacher also helped me with it. I never even used AI. All of my friends and this class all used AI and guess what I’m the only one who got a zero. I just put my essay into multiple detectors and four out of five say 90% + human and the other one says 90% AI.

[u/AdhesiveSeaMonkey]

Most genai is used to enhance the conversational aspect of your interactions. It basically helps the ai seem more human-like. It does not help with academic papers as it is unable to create truly original thought or have any critical thinking abilities..... yet.

And, even if it did, especially if it did have those abilities, we should still require our students to acquire those skills before using any ai tools.

[u/bunchedupwalrus → u/AdhesiveSeaMonkey]

Interesting you mention academic papers. Stanford recently published a preprint on the topic

Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas?” by Chenglei Si, Diyi Yang, and Tatsunori Hashimoto

By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility

https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04109

I really gotta ask how extensively you’ve used the higher end models

[u/AdhesiveSeaMonkey → u/bunchedupwalrus]

I gotta ask if you even read the entire abstract of the study you linked - here's what you left out:

Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas

we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation.

Getting back to the point, ai is not a tool k-12 students should be allowed to use as it supplants their ability to think critically, originally, and analytically.

[u/bunchedupwalrus → u/AdhesiveSeaMonkey]

Is that what your argument was? I don’t think it was, and I don’t enjoy having fence posts shifted on me. If you want to discuss whether it is capable of generating expert level ideas from scratch with no intervention, that’s a different discussion and we can have it once you finish the first one, if you finish the first one.

You said it doesn’t help with academic level papers. That it is unable to create original ideas. This research says otherwise. And it says it very clearly. For the record. I don’t share articles I’ve only read the abstract of. I share articles I’ve read. And you’ve picked out a few meaningful sentences from a very nuanced read, and are acting like it’s the whole point. Shit, GPT 3.5 was better at reading and summarizing a paper than your showing.

Should kids be allowed to use ai? Yeah, of course they should. They should learn how to work with it, utilize its strengths and understand its weaknesses, because it is here. It is a tool to be used correctly. Anything else just stokes more ignorance, and makes them more susceptible to using it incorrectly later in life, not to mention handicaps them in an ever more competitive world

[u/AdhesiveSeaMonkey → u/bunchedupwalrus]

Dear lord. I'm sorry I started this. Yes, my larger original point (regardless of the one sentence you are choosing to focus on) was that ai should not be used in k-12 settings. Probably not in college either. To be clear, my pedantic friend, what I mean is that students in any setting should not use ai to generate what should be their original work.

I'm done with you now. But feel free to reply all you like. I doubt you'll be able to stop yourself.

[u/bunchedupwalrus → u/AdhesiveSeaMonkey]

This reply really gave me some extreme ick. So for funzies, I tried asking ChatGPT to analyze your language, so I could remain impartial and better understand why you felt the need to reply at all.

Condescending Language: Referring to the other person as “my pedantic friend” is a clear indicator of condescension. The speaker is attempting to distract from the main point by insisting the discussion has overly fixated on trivial details despite a clear response to the stated position. This indicates some degree of intellectual arrogance and frustration

Dismissiveness and Attempt to End the Conversation: The comment “I’m done with you now” indicates a desire to terminate further dialogue. Yet they then say, “But feel free to reply all you like. I doubt you’ll be able to stop yourself,” which is a taunt. This contradiction suggests mixed feelings: they may primarily want to maintain a sense of control by predicting and disparaging the other person’s future responses in advance

Projection and Challenge: The final lines imply that the speaker believes the other person lacks self-control or the ability to refrain from arguing back. This is both a provocation and an attempt to remain in a position of superiority while calling for the discussions close.

Overall Impression: The personality cues point toward someone who feels intellectually cornered but wishes to remain self-assured. They exhibit frustration, condescension, a rigid adherence to traditionalist values, and a desire to believe they’ve maintained the moral and intellectual high ground

Neat. Looks like we were both right. Certainly too dangerous a tool to fall into student hands. Well anyway, since you’re done with me now, my liege, good luck