Raiding the inarticulate since 2010

accelerated academy acceleration agency AI Algorithmic Authoritarianism and Digital Repression archer Archive Archiving artificial intelligence automation Becoming Who We Are Between Post-Capitalism and Techno-Fascism big data blogging capitalism ChatGPT claude Cognitive Triage: Practice, Culture and Strategies Communicative Escalation and Cultural Abundance: How Do We Cope? Corporate Culture, Elites and Their Self-Understandings craft creativity critical realism data science Defensive Elites Digital Capitalism and Digital Social Science Digital Distraction, Personal Agency and The Reflexive Imperative Digital Elections, Party Politics and Diplomacy digital elites Digital Inequalities Digital Social Science Digital Sociology digital sociology Digital Universities elites Fragile Movements and Their Politics Cultures generative AI higher education Interested labour Lacan Listening LLMs margaret archer Organising personal morphogenesis Philosophy of Technology platform capitalism platforms populism Post-Democracy, Depoliticisation and Technocracy post-truth psychoanalysis public engagement public sociology publishing Reading realism reflexivity scholarship sexuality Shadow Mobilization, Astroturfing and Manipulation Social Media Social Media for Academics social media for academics social ontology social theory sociology technology The Content Ecosystem The Intensification of Work The Political Economy of Digital Capitalism The Technological History of Digital Capitalism Thinking trump twitter Uncategorized work writing zizek

ChatGPT’s advice on examining student essays for evidence of generative AI

Yes, “track changes” and “document history” features, commonly found in word processors and collaborative document editing platforms (like Google Docs or Microsoft Word), can be used to examine the evolution of a document over time. When investigating the possible use of generative AI by students, these features might offer some insights, but there are caveats.

  1. Evidence of Drastic Shifts: If a student suddenly inserts a large chunk of highly polished or overly sophisticated text that seems inconsistent with their previous writing, it might suggest the use of an external tool, possibly including generative AI.
  2. Inconsistencies in Style or Tone: Generative AI outputs might not always align with the student’s typical style or tone. If there are sections in the document history that show a stark difference in style or complexity, it might be a clue.
  3. Timestamps: Rapid additions of comprehensive and intricate content in a very short time frame might be suspicious. If a student typically takes hours to craft a few paragraphs but suddenly adds several pages within minutes, it could indicate external assistance.
  4. Direct Comparisons: By comparing different versions of a document from its history, educators can see how ideas developed and changed. This can give insights into whether the student was genuinely working through an idea or if they simply inserted pre-generated content.

However, there are several caveats and challenges:

  1. Not Conclusive Evidence: Even if there are signs that suggest generative AI use, it’s not definitive proof. The student might have received legitimate help, done further research, or simply had a burst of inspiration.
  2. Privacy Concerns: Monitoring and analyzing a student’s document history might raise ethical and privacy concerns. Before resorting to such measures, it’s essential to ensure that students’ privacy rights are respected and not violated.
  3. Work Done Outside the Platform: Students might draft their work in another platform or on paper and then transcribe it to the primary platform. In such cases, the document history wouldn’t reflect the genuine evolution of the content.
  4. Sophisticated Users: Savvy students might be aware of these monitoring methods and deliberately avoid them by crafting their document elsewhere and then copying it into the main platform, leaving no trace of generative AI usage in the document history.

In summary, while “track changes” and “document history” can offer some hints about the potential use of generative AI, they are not foolproof methods. A comprehensive approach, which includes promoting academic integrity, educating students about the pitfalls of over-reliance on AI, and fostering open communication, is likely more effective.

,
,