[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: ChatGPT



My and compiled TIPS for detecting if a student used an LLMs ( poorly) that you (a human) can use at the end of this email:



BUT I would not trust Turnitin for its AI detection accuracy. You are literally saying you have proof that someone used an AI tool against the rules of the class -  that is cheating ( a serious accusation) and you could be absolutely wrong. 
University of Maryland computer scientist studies found: no publicly available AI detectors are sufficiently reliable in practical scenarios. See the independent tests with Turnitin from Washington Post below - they are much worse than Turnitin claims.

Again I personally think ( as does many and the NYTimes article below that all students and teachers! should be using and become strong in using these new tools, well. However, using them without your own ideas and without editing to what you are trying to say deserves a bad grade. ( last email I explained a pro way to use them). Using them where a student just puts in the assignment instructions and hits generate and never edit: deserves a fail - see my techniques below.

  LLMs are Large Language Models like GPT3-4, chatGPT ( gpt3-4 with extra correction/features), Googles Bard, Bings ChatGPT, Meta's LLama, ... )  

 two good articles ( WaPost)  on how AI detection tools do not work well enough  -- There are more ads/articles for these tools targeting nervous teachers, claiming they work -  than diet pills (buy ours!).


headline: 

Detecting AI may be impossible. That’s a big problem for teachers.

excerpt:
Turnitin has acknowledged a reliability problem with Ai cheating-detection software used on 38 million student papers. Computer scientists warn we may never be able to reliably detect AI.
...
"New preprint research from computer science professor Soheil Feizi and colleagues at the University of Maryland finds that no publicly available AI detectors are sufficiently reliable in practical scenarios. They have a very high false-positive rate, and can be pretty easily evaded,” Feizi told me. For example, he said, when AI writing is run through paraphrasing software, which works like a kind of automated thesaurus, the AI detection systems are little better than a random guess. (I found the same problem in my tests of Turnitin.)"

--------------------
2) Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/04/01/chatgpt-cheating-detection-turnitin/

  headline: 

We tested a new ChatGPT-detector for teachers. 

excerpt:
"The result? It got over half of them at least partly wrong. Turnitin accurately identified six of the 16 — but failed on three, including a flag on 8 percent of Goetz’s original essay. And I’d give it only partial credit on the remaining seven, where it was directionally correct but misidentified some portion of ChatGPT-generated or mixed-source writing."
-------------

3) Another good resource: 
Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It.
--------------------
--------------------
--------------------

MY COMPILED TIPS for detecting (bad - not cleaned, edited or rewritten) LLM generated work:

1) talk to your student and put in a policy so you can use it when these bas essays come.
2) in that policy ( IMHO - my suggestion) have something like "it is the student's responsibility to not submit something with a major incorrect statement - such omission will result in a failed grade on the whole paper/essay/assignment
3) Use these systems yourself to write some essay - you will see for yourself and get used to their lame patterns  ( see list below)
4) If you suspect ChatGPT wrote something but can't tell for sure, have a conversation with the writer. Don't accuse them of using ChatGPT—instead, ask them more questions about the writing or content to make their knowledge lines up with the content. You may also want to ask them about their writing process to see if they admit to using ChatGPT or other AI writing tools.


Human detection techniques (do not fail on one of these but - use them in total to  build a case - then confront the student!)

Uses words like "firstly," "secondly," "therefore," and "in conclusion." While many school-age essay writers also use this type of language when laying out their essays, you'll almost always see these words in LLM-written essays Other overly formal verbose phrases show up alot in these systems.

A lack of descriptive and "rare" words.  LLMs like ChatGPT work by predicting the next word in a sentence, which results in lots of non-specific words like "it," "is," and "they." Because ChatGPT is less likely to use rarer words to describe things, an overall lack of descriptive language could mean that ChatGPT wrote the content. 

Some sentences look right, but don't actually make sense. LLMs like ChatGPT can create grammatically perfect sentences that don't make sense, even though they look great on the surface. This is because LLms  doesn't know whether something is true or false—it only knows how to use the right kind of word in the right place. If you find yourself rereading something that looks like it should make sense, but you can't grasp what the sentence is trying to say, there's a good chance you're looking at AI-generated writing.

Implausible or inaccurate statements. LLMs like ChatGPT, Google Bard, ... are known to hallucinate or make up facts. While students and job applicants can also include inaccuracies in their writing, AI bots make false information seem extremely believable. ChatGPT also has limited knowledge of events that occurred after 2021, which means it usually can't produce factual information about current events.[10] If the writing seems very well-written but contains false information, it could be AI generated.

Fake or inaccessible sources. While the version of ChatGPT that's built into Bing cites sources automatically, the standard version of ChatGPT tends to make up sources that don't exist.  If you're a teacher evaluating a student essay or a student who uses ChatGPT to find sources, double-check the sources provided by ChatGPT to make sure they're real.

No grammatical or spelling errors. While students do their best to catch all grammatical and spelling errors before turning in their writing, it's hard to catch everything. Computers, on the other hand, produce grammatically impeccable work—even if the writing isn't factual.

When in doubt, ask ChatGPT to produce a similar piece of writing. If you think ChatGPT wrote an essay, letter, or other bit of text, log in to ChatGPT and ask the chatbot to create similar content using the writing's main points. If ChatGPT's response contains the same structure as the piece of content you're evaluating, it's possible the writer used ChatGPT.
 
ChatGPT often produces writing that looks "perfect" on the surface but goes nowhere or contains false information. Some signs that ChatGPT did the writing: A lack of descriptive language, little actual information, repeated information, and sentences that look right but don't make sense. T

THE MORE YOU USE The TOOLS  YOURSELF THE MORE YOU CAN SPOT THESE ISSUES EASILY!

I hope this helps.  Can I get back to summer now?
-steve



-  Steve DiPaola, PhD    -  -  
 - Prof: Sch of Interactive Arts & Technology (SIAT);  
 - Past Director: Cognitive Science Program; 
 - - Simon Fraser University - - -  
    research site:   ivizlab.sfu.ca
    art work site:    www.dipaola.org/art/
    our book on:     AI and Cognitive Virtual Characters
At Simon Fraser University, we live and work on the unceded traditional territories of the Coast Salish peoples of the xʷməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam), Skwxwú7mesh (Squamish), and Səl̓ílwətaɬ (Tsleil-Waututh) and in SFU Surrey, Katzie, Kwantlen, Kwikwetlem (kʷikʷəƛ̓əm), Qayqayt, Musqueam (xʷməθkʷəy̓əm), Tsawassen, and numerous Stó:lō Nations.



On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 1:34 PM Christina Giovas <christina_giovas@sfu.ca> wrote:

Hello Everyone,


Michael is correct (I'm speaking here as the academic integrity advisor for my unit). The only program faculty are permitted to use to detect AI use in student submissions is Turnitin, for which the university has a data privacy agreement and students have agreed to the T&Cs. Use of GPTZero, ChatGPT, or other programs isn't permitted because students haven't consented to it. Turnitin's AI detector has a reputation for false positives, so I understand wanting to "test" for AI using a number of  programs. A student caught cheating in this way, however, could have a basis for appealing any resulting report and penalties on procedural grounds.


Really, your best approach if you suspect AI use is to interview the student and ask them to provide evidence demonstrating the development of their submission (e.g. notes, drafts, etc.). The threshold for determining if a violation has taken place is the "balance of probabilities". In other words, is it more likely or less likely that the particular facts of the case can be explained by AI use?


SFU recently released guidance for students on appropriate AI use in the classroom: https://www.sfu.ca/students/academicintegrity/UsingGenerativeAI.html


Best,


Christina M. Giovas, PhD
Associate Professor, Department of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
Co-Editor, Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology


From: Michael T. Schmitt <mschmitt@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 7, 2023 6:55:14 AM
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Subject: Re: ChatGPT
 

Hi All,


Ronda mentions that "My TA input several chunks of prose from the student's essay and asked Chat GPT if it had produced them."


I had heard there were privacy issues with that practice -- putting what is ostensibly student's work into Chat GPT, GPTZero, or similar services as they will collect that data and make it part of their database without the permission of the student.  


Can anyone confirm whether there is an issue with that? 


Thanks,

Michael


On 2023-08-05 10:31 a.m., Ronda Arab wrote:

Hello all,


I am perhaps an outlier here, but I have found it useful to ban all use of Chat GPT for my courses, particularly for my recent Engl 113W class, and I will continue to do so.


Out 100-level W credit courses are designed and intended for students to learn and practice writing. And Chat GPT, although it does not spit up perfect gems of stylish, sophisticated prose, is able to produce grammatically correct, essentially correct content, if that content is available elsewhere on the internet. While I have been honing my essay topics for years to make it difficult or impossible for students to use online cheat sites, it is sometimes difficult to do that perfectly, especially when one teaches, as I often do, authors such as Shakespeare, for whom there is a lot of content found online. Chat GPT is a new obstacle, though. 


As far as tutors go, using a tutor or a service who changes your writing (i.e., corrects your grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, etc) rather than simply pointing out errors and teaching you how to correct them is forbidden by SFU Academic Honestly policy, although there appears to be a provision allowing instructors to override the policy, which I choose not to do. I've copied the provision here:



2.3.5 Unauthorized or undisclosed use of an editor, whether paid or unpaid. An editor is an individual or service, other than the instructor or supervisory committee, who manipulates, revises, corrects, or alters a student’s written or non-written work. Students must seek direction from the instructor about the type of editor and the extent of editing that is allowed in the course. Students may access authorized academic support services such as the Student Learning Commons, Centre for English Language Learning, Teaching, and Research, and WriteAway, which do not provide editing. 


I had a case  of a student cheating using Chat GPT this past semester in my Engl 113W class. This is a "W" class--the students are getting credit for working on their writing as well as for understanding the literature that we study. My TA input several chunks of prose from the student's essay and asked Chat GPT if it had produced them. Chat GPT said it had. I went through the paper thoroughly and found many instances for which Chat GPT confessed it had produced the text. (In some cases I had to switch a pronoun to a literary character's name or vice versa--it appears it had to be the exact text.) Now this is not a fool-proof way of discovering whether or not the text was generated by Chat GPT, as Chat GPT will sometimes tell you it generated content that it did not generate, as I tested it with a few chunks of writing from a published article of my own. So I met with the student in question. The student said that he had used Chat GPT to "proof read" his essay after he had written the essay himself. That was enough to give the student a 0 on the assignment, as I had explicitly forbidden, in writing, on the assignment, all use of Chat GPT. I also asked the student to send me his notes and drafts. Perhaps it was no surprise to discover that included in the rough work he sent me was no sign at all of an essay that was written before plugging it into Chat GPT, which is what he claimed he had done. 


Sure, Chat GPT didn't write every word of the essay. The essay required the student to write 1000-1300 words and Chat GPT generally can only spit out about 400 words at a time (in my experience with experimenting with it). So the student had to craft a series of questions to ask Chat GPT and then piece together the bits. Nevertheless, the student did not do the work of putting his own thoughts into writing, which requires cognitive functioning that I continue to believe is an important skill to learn and develop. 


I suspect I will have to incorporate more in-class essays into my "W" courses for units for which there is a fair amount of online content available, as I am simply not ok with students getting credit for writing they did not do.


Best,

Ronda


Dr. Ronda Arab

Associate Professor of English

Simon Fraser University


pronouns: she/her


From: Gerardo Otero <otero@sfu.ca>
Sent: 04 August 2023 19:28:33
To: Nicky Didicher; academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Cc: Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor
Subject: Re: ChatGPT
 

Thanks, Nicky. Very useful suggestions in that Google Doc, with all the range of approaches, from prohibition to totally free access without acknowledgment.

 

Best regards, Gerardo

 

From: Nicky Didicher <didicher@sfu.ca>
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 at 5:50 PM
To: Gerardo Otero <otero@sfu.ca>, "academic-discussion@sfu.ca" <academic-discussion@sfu.ca>
Cc: Andres Cisneros-Montemayor <a_cisneros@sfu.ca>
Subject: Re: ChatGPT

 

Hello, Gerardo and others,

 

Should you wish to see a large range of different AI policy statements for many different disciplines and from many different institutions, here is a google doc curated by Lance Eaton:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RMVwzjc1o0Mi8Blw_-JUTcXv02b2WRH86vw7mi16W3U/edit?pli=1#heading=h.1cykjn2vg2wx

 

I completely agree that forbidding the use of generative AI is futile! And the main way to go for me is to include it the examples I give for how to write the "Assistance Acknowledged" paragraph I already ask for with essays and creative projects.

 

I'm planning to adjust the wording of my syllabi policies depending on the course. For example, for my quantitative analysis of poetry class this Fall, I've drafted the following:

 

"• you are permitted to use text-generating AI such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or Quillbot for your written assignments, provided you acknowledge it at the end of the assignment and specify what you used it for (e.g., grammar and style corrections, organization, suggestions for an effective title); note: ChatGPT writes terrible metrical poetry and isn’t good at scansion--it can find stressed syllables most of the time, but not divide lines into feet successfully; however, it’s useful for fixing grammar errors and revising for clarity"

 

In the instructions for their term paper, I will also note that when ChatGPT writes English essays it usually paraphrases cheater sites such as gradesaver and shmoop, and, when asked to used peer-reviewed sources, it fabricates evidence.

 

Nicky


From: Gerardo Otero <otero@sfu.ca>
Sent: August 4, 2023 4:47:38 PM
To: academic-discussion@sfu.ca
Cc: Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor
Subject: ChatGPT

 

Dear Colleagues:

 

In September, I’ll be teaching for the first time since ChatGPT became available. So, I’m rather dreading how I will handle this issue, but have no intention of forbidding it (that would be like stopping gravity). Earlier in the year, we had a very interesting conversation on this topic in this list. At that time, I wrote a brief insert for my syllabus based on ideas from other colleagues’ posts. I would like share that short text, asking you for any ideas, criticisms, or suggestions you might have. Here’s the text from the section pertaining to mid-term and final essays (this is a grad course):

 

You are required to insert an “acknowledgments” section in mid-term and final essays. You can say whether you began with Wikipedia and engaged with ChatGPT to do your initial research, got idea X from a peer in class, and had your mother or father proofread your paper. Bear in mind that ChatGPT can yield false responses and provide references that do not exist. You must double check anything you use from this tool, and preferably stick to our required readings to write your essays. They should provide you with more than sufficient material.

 

Best regards, Gerardo

__ 

 

Gerardo Otero

Professor and Graduate Chair

School for International Studies
Simon Fraser University
7200-515 West Hastings Street
Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 5K3

Tel. Off: +1-778-782-4508

Website: http://www.sfu.ca/people/otero.html

Gerardo’s YouTube Channel

 

I thankfully acknowledge that I live and work in unceded traditional territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, and Kwikwetlem Nations.

-- 

Michael T. Schmitt, PhD
Simon Fraser University
Department of Psychology 
8888 University Drive
Burnaby BC, Canada V5A 1S6

The SFU Burnaby campus is located on the unceded traditional territories of the Squamish, Tsleil-Waututh, Musqueam, and Kwikwetlem Nations.

mschmitt@sfu.ca
https://schmittlabca.wordpress.com/