‘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
The point of education is to learn something. I think "using AI to generate complex ideas will prove you don't know what you're talking about to anyone that does" and "if your use of AI is suspicious, you're better off blaming AI than dying on that hill defending it" are decent lessons. One can hope that shame would be a course correction to a successful education.
True, the use of ai or not could in fact just be the test for an early exam, and if they fail it then they fail it. Moving forward it would determine how they do in the class moreso than the initial ai catcher test.