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, no 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 to compose the modern academy. 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 ignorant of it happening.
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 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.
I think the actual risk takeaway from this is that you wrote a giant fucking wall of text that essentially boiled down to, “I think AI is fine I think that academia is terrible”.
You might have said some other stuff but as I said, it’s a wall of text, so if you had some good points to make it was lost in the unnecessary voburs wall of self-flattering.
self-reported rates of cheating remain at a constant 25-35% of the student body over large periods of time.
I’ve tried for hours, but I can’t figure out where you got these numbers. I can mostly find sources implying that far more people admit to engaging in cheating, not to mention sources which imply more people engage in cheating than those who admit to it. Perhaps I’m just in a filter bubble. Can you tell me where you got these numbers?
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.
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
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, no 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 to compose the modern academy. 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 ignorant of it happening.
x00z@lemmy.world 1 week ago
I asked Chatty for a TL;DR:
I think you went a bit too far. Most of this is also only accurate for the US.
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
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 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.
echodot@feddit.uk 5 days ago
I think the actual risk takeaway from this is that you wrote a giant fucking wall of text that essentially boiled down to, “I think AI is fine I think that academia is terrible”.
You might have said some other stuff but as I said, it’s a wall of text, so if you had some good points to make it was lost in the unnecessary voburs wall of self-flattering.
P1nkman@lemmy.world 6 days ago
bUt ThE wEsT iS 'mUrIcA!
WolframViper@lemmy.org 6 days ago
I’ve tried for hours, but I can’t figure out where you got these numbers. I can mostly find sources implying that far more people admit to engaging in cheating, not to mention sources which imply more people engage in cheating than those who admit to it. Perhaps I’m just in a filter bubble. Can you tell me where you got these numbers?
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
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.