‘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
Christ.......
". My hidden text asked them to write the paper “from a Marxist perspective”
Freshmen.
That's a dangerous proof.
He could have said to write from a zagnoore brandle-frujt perspective. Some would have scanned the assignment, ignored the part they didn't understand, and kept chooching right along. Many students would rather try to figure it out than sound stupid in class or risk the spotlight of social interaction.
Interrogating each of them on the material is the only safe way.
Honestly interrogating each one on the material would be best but costly. Some classes have 80 students and professors have more than one class.
Also rest of the article says he asked students objecting accusations to tell what Marxism is and they admitted afterwards.
Apparently chatgpt asked "are you sure you want marxist perspective" as topic is older and not that directly related to marxism. One said they picked yes because quote, unquote "it sounded smart."
The idiom you're looking for in your last sentence is quote, unquote
Don't do this to me.
(Jokes aside thank you)
No shame at all, just wanted to let you know!