If people can't be bothered to write anymore, then I will be very picky about what I read. I will probably do more research and make sure it is someone I trust to have written it themselves not relied on trash machines.

This was such a good idea, so many of these are fire.

then shall they call upon me, but I will not cause any information to be accumulated on the stack.

How much more are ye better than the ordered-list representation

evaluating the operator might modify env, which will be the hope of unjust men

Lol, well sounds like a bad assignment if you can get away with just summary, although I guess it is language class(?) it's more reasonable. I'm not really shooken up over this type of thing, though. I'm not pro-cheating, but it's not for justice or morality; it's cause education is for the students benefit and they're missing out on growth. We really need more critical thinkers in this world. Like, desperately need them. Lol

Except I've given this quiz prior to GPT and no, it wasn't once used because it's not even a current advertisement campaign. My average 19 year old usually uses examples from my influencers, for instance, so I get stuff like Hello Fresh or Better Help, and usually specific to an ad read on stream on the past couple weeks. After all, the question asks for ads they've seen and remembered.

Also, you neglect how these models get data. It's likely pulled not because it's a favorite, but because GPT steals from textbooks, blogs, etc, and those examples that would use that as a go-to (especially if the author uses 90s examples). Plus nevermind that your joe shmo Internet user isn't the same as the group I'm teaching, most of them weren't even alive when the Just Do It campaign started, lol.

It really undermines the point of coming up with your own examples and applying theory to something from their life. I am not inherently anti GPT but this is a very bad use case.

That's actually something that was discussed like, two years ago within the institutions I'm connected to. I don't think it was ever fully resolved, but I get the sense that the inaccurate results made it too troublesome.

My mentally coming out of an education degree, if your assessment can be done by AI, you're relying too much on memorization and not enough on critical thinking. I complain in my reply, but the honest truth is these students mostly lost points because they didn't apply theory to the example (although it's because the example wasn't fully understood since it wasn't their own). K-12 generally fails on this, which is why freshmen have the hardest time with these things, GPT or otherwise.

Last November, I gave some volunteer drawing classes at a school. Since I had limited space, I had to pick and choose a small number of 9-10yo kids, and asked the students interested to do a drawing and answer "Why would you like to participate in the drawing classes?"

One of the kids used chatgpt or some other AI. One of the parts that gave it away was that, while everyone else wrote something like "I want because", he went on with "By participating, you can learn new things and make friends". I called him out in private and he tried to bullshit me, but it wasn't hard to make him contradict himself or admit to "using help". I then told him that it was blatantly obvious that he used AI to answer for him and what really annoyed me wasn't so much the fact he used it, but that he managed to write all of that without reading, and thought that I would be too dumb or lazy to bother reading or to notice any problems.

I have a similar background and no surprise, it's mostly a problem in my asynchronous class. The ones who have my in person lectures are much more engaged, since it is a fun topic and I don't enjoy teaching unless I'm also making them laugh. No dice with asynchronous.

And yeah, I'm also kinda doing that with my essay questions, requiring stuff you sorta can't just summarize. Important you critical thinking, even if you're not just trying to detect GPT.

I remember reading that GPT isn't really foolproof on verifying bad usage, and I am not willing to fail anyone over it unless I had to. False positives and all that. Hell, I just used GPT as a sounding board for a few new questions I'm writing, and it's advice wasn't bad. There's good ways to use it, just... you know, not so stupidly.

It had its fair share of shit and that gradually increased with time, but LLMs are like a whole new level of flooding everything with zero effort

I'd say it was weird, not shit. It was hard to find niche sites, but once you did they tended to be super deep into the hobby, sport, movies, or games.

SEO (search engine optimization) was probably the first step down this path, where people would put white text on a white background with hundreds of words that they hoped a search engine would index.

Yep. My work has pushed AI shit massively. Something like 53% of staff are using it. They're using it to write reports for them for clients, all sorts. It's honestly mad.

Relevant comic