‘But there is a difference between recognising AI use and proving its use. So I tried an experiment. … I received 122 paper submissions. Of those, the Trojan horse easily identified 33 AI-generated papers. I sent these stats to all the students and gave them the opportunity to admit to using AI before they were locked into failing the class. Another 14 outed themselves. In other words, nearly 39% of the submissions were at least partially written by AI.‘
Article archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20251125225915/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/set-trap-to-catch-students-cheating-ai_uk_691f20d1e4b00ed8a94f4c01
Ah, but then the bibliography and recommended reading sections of the paper would have cleared that up. Fucking tankies love recommending “you should read more theory, comrade.” Also, why would paid troll farms in ethiopia be taking classes in person?
Oh my god, you’re right. The number of .ml users that “learned their theory from someone else” instead of reading source texts is mind-boggling. To be fair, I don’t want to read 150yo texts to inform my own opinions, but moreso because I find them archaic in their reasoning, not because they’re dull and pompous (they are).
If you “learned your theory form someone else” you’re somebody’s goon, not a maxist.
Nearly every human on earth would be in that category. The whole basis of human knowledge is that we take the knowledge of others and build upon it
You build on the knowledge. Not the person.