<snip>
I think there will come a time when all assessment is in person or by video call.
That’s going to be challenging for, say, a cohort of 25-30 MA students’ dissertation level assessments.
Are MA dissertations not currently subject to a viva-style process? My MSci project was. I would think that for the "big stuff" that would be manageable; the issue is going to be with continuous assessment. 40% of my marks in some courses were from weekly homeworks, I can see that using AI to achieve full marks could become very tempting.
It's actually easier, I think, to write your own words than to use an AI to put out words and then edit them appropriately. Editing, as I'm aware, is real work.
Maybe for you. For me, coming up with my own words in the first place is also real work.
I can understand the attraction of doing what Gramps49 is doing. But for me, in the context of an informal discussion forum for human beings, it would be completely self-defeating. The question I'm now asking myself is whether I can live with other people doing it.
I get that, I think. It has been some training for me to find my own voice, and I think sometimes using AI would be like denying myself the exercise.
Far as what another poster does, that's on them. I might read someone's posts less if I figure I'm dealing with an AI mediator. Or maybe the AI will lend their posts a certain generic quality. If I wanted to read a wikipedia article, well, I already have access to wikipedia.
Perhaps like you, I have a deep concern that norms and rules are respected, but I am not that concerned with winning an argument with people on the internet. If my writing isn't perfectly polished, or if my manners are a little strange, that's fine. I don't expect to get along with everyone I interact with. That's one reason AI doesn't tempt me. I'm content with my own awkward style of communication.
I would discourage other posters from using AI because I think it encourages mediocre writing and thus mediocre engagement. I just don't know if I'd forbid it unless we reached a point where its use had become so widespread as to start squelching authentic human interaction (or what passes for it via the internet.) If a few people need to use it to hammer an argument out, I'm not sure it needs to become a policy issue...yet.
It's actually easier, I think, to write your own words than to use an AI to put out words and then edit them appropriately. Editing, as I'm aware, is real work.
Maybe for you. For me, coming up with my own words in the first place is also real work.
I can understand the attraction of doing what Gramps49 is doing. But for me, in the context of an informal discussion forum for human beings, it would be completely self-defeating. The question I'm now asking myself is whether I can live with other people doing it.
I get that, I think. It has been some training for me to find my own voice, and I think sometimes using AI would be like denying myself the exercise.
Far as what another poster does, that's on them. I might read someone's posts less if I figure I'm dealing with an AI mediator. Or maybe the AI will lend their posts a certain generic quality. If I wanted to read a wikipedia article, well, I already have access to wikipedia.
Perhaps like you, I have a deep concern that norms and rules are respected, but I am not that concerned with winning an argument with people on the internet. If my writing isn't perfectly polished, or if my manners are a little strange, that's fine. I don't expect to get along with everyone I interact with. That's one reason AI doesn't tempt me. I'm content with my own awkward style of communication.
I would discourage other posters from using AI because I think it encourages mediocre writing and thus mediocre engagement. I just don't know if I'd forbid it unless we reached a point where its use had become so widespread as to start squelching authentic human interaction (or what passes for it via the internet.) If a few people need to use it to hammer an argument out, I'm not sure it needs to become a policy issue...yet.
If that helps.
@Bulfrog, it isn't just 'mediocre' writing or mediocre engagement, though, it is non-engagement with a topic in favour of regurgitated content cobbled together by AI from unknown sources and this constitutes plagiarism. A recent case that drew a lot of attention was when New York Times reviewer Alex Preston used AI to do a book review for him and unwittingly reproduced large portions of another review of the same book published in the Guardian four months prior. Preston was fired.
I have been thinking about the differences between online discussion fora and the other kinds of spaces mentioned above, including educational/university, Wikipedia and so on.
I think maybe it comes down to purpose. On Wikipedia we are engaged in writing an encyclopedia, so AI slop threatens to undermine it as a trustworthy source of information. At university, students taking shortcuts using AI is dishonourable because they are playacting at having knowledge when all they have done is spend a second or two writing a prompt.
What are we doing when we are engaging with posts on Reddit or here or on other social media?
I suspect we believe that we are doing one thing whilst actually doing something else. I think we are enthused by the idea of "community" with largely anonymous other people whereas perhaps we are mostly engaged by seeing the comments, either because they reinforce our worldview, amuse or challenge us in satisfying ways.
Would it change anything if we were to discover that the characters we had engaged with were AI? The sensations of challenge, amusement and so on were real. The learning we had from different viewpoints on a small point of difference is likely real.
We are not trying to "do" anything here like write an encyclopedia or pass an examination.
Maybe it only matters if someone else is using AI if we become aware that they are using AI.
I liken it to my IRL U3A* groups. People who are interested in many things - some incredible experts in their field. I'm in awe of the things the people in my photography group have done. Now applying their minds to photography.
It's the same here.
Here on the Ship we have top organists, singers, engineers, nuclear physicists - and everyday people like me who had and have ordinary and interesting lives.
(*UK University of the Third Age)
There is nowhere like the Ship and nothing could replace it if it sunk.
That's why Admins and Hosts work so hard to drain the bilges and keep the sails trimmed.
Perhaps like you, I have a deep concern that norms and rules are respected,
Hmm. Maybe I could refer you back to "Junior-hosting-gate" by way of illustrating my general level of respect for norms and rules.
I would discourage other posters from using AI because I think it encourages mediocre writing and thus mediocre engagement. I just don't know if I'd forbid it unless we reached a point where its use had become so widespread as to start squelching authentic human interaction (or what passes for it via the internet.) If a few people need to use it to hammer an argument out, I'm not sure it needs to become a policy issue...yet.
It is in the nature of technological tools to change the human beings that use them. What's distinctive about AI is its capacity to impact what it means to be human, by virtue of its potential for intervening quite so comprehensively in what human beings do.
So, at the same time as I'm considering accepting the use of AI by individuals here, I'm aware there's a price we'd all paying (or at least consequences we'd be facing) for doing so.
Would it change anything if we were to discover that the characters we had engaged with were AI? The sensations of challenge, amusement and so on were real. The learning we had from different viewpoints on a small point of difference is likely real.
We are not trying to "do" anything here like write an encyclopedia or pass an examination.
Maybe it only matters if someone else is using AI if we become aware that they are using AI.
One thought experiment this suggests is to gradually replace the other users of the forums until there is only one human being left, unaware that all the other characters they are engaging with are artificial. Then the last human being is replaced.
So, at the same time as I'm considering accepting the use of AI by individuals here, I'm aware there's a price we'd all paying (or at least consequences we'd be facing) for doing so.
Did you read my post (above)? Because, if you did, you certainly ignored it.
So, at the same time as I'm considering accepting the use of AI by individuals here, I'm aware there's a price we'd all paying (or at least consequences we'd be facing) for doing so.
Did you read my post (above)? Because, if you did, you certainly ignored it.
I don't follow. I was responding to Bullfrog's post and to Basketactortale's post, not yours.
I'm afraid I'm unable to deduce or infer how the short section of my post that you quote relates to your post. I made a point about how technology impacts humanity and thus these forums. You made a point about these forums and community. What is it that I'm missing?
Comments
Are MA dissertations not currently subject to a viva-style process? My MSci project was. I would think that for the "big stuff" that would be manageable; the issue is going to be with continuous assessment. 40% of my marks in some courses were from weekly homeworks, I can see that using AI to achieve full marks could become very tempting.
Could be a case for taking on more humans?
I get that, I think. It has been some training for me to find my own voice, and I think sometimes using AI would be like denying myself the exercise.
Far as what another poster does, that's on them. I might read someone's posts less if I figure I'm dealing with an AI mediator. Or maybe the AI will lend their posts a certain generic quality. If I wanted to read a wikipedia article, well, I already have access to wikipedia.
Perhaps like you, I have a deep concern that norms and rules are respected, but I am not that concerned with winning an argument with people on the internet. If my writing isn't perfectly polished, or if my manners are a little strange, that's fine. I don't expect to get along with everyone I interact with. That's one reason AI doesn't tempt me. I'm content with my own awkward style of communication.
I would discourage other posters from using AI because I think it encourages mediocre writing and thus mediocre engagement. I just don't know if I'd forbid it unless we reached a point where its use had become so widespread as to start squelching authentic human interaction (or what passes for it via the internet.) If a few people need to use it to hammer an argument out, I'm not sure it needs to become a policy issue...yet.
If that helps.
@Bulfrog, it isn't just 'mediocre' writing or mediocre engagement, though, it is non-engagement with a topic in favour of regurgitated content cobbled together by AI from unknown sources and this constitutes plagiarism. A recent case that drew a lot of attention was when New York Times reviewer Alex Preston used AI to do a book review for him and unwittingly reproduced large portions of another review of the same book published in the Guardian four months prior. Preston was fired.
I think maybe it comes down to purpose. On Wikipedia we are engaged in writing an encyclopedia, so AI slop threatens to undermine it as a trustworthy source of information. At university, students taking shortcuts using AI is dishonourable because they are playacting at having knowledge when all they have done is spend a second or two writing a prompt.
What are we doing when we are engaging with posts on Reddit or here or on other social media?
I suspect we believe that we are doing one thing whilst actually doing something else. I think we are enthused by the idea of "community" with largely anonymous other people whereas perhaps we are mostly engaged by seeing the comments, either because they reinforce our worldview, amuse or challenge us in satisfying ways.
Would it change anything if we were to discover that the characters we had engaged with were AI? The sensations of challenge, amusement and so on were real. The learning we had from different viewpoints on a small point of difference is likely real.
We are not trying to "do" anything here like write an encyclopedia or pass an examination.
Maybe it only matters if someone else is using AI if we become aware that they are using AI.
I have met at least ten at Shipmeets IRL, two recently in Bristol at the Art Gallery..
Go and visit All Saints. You'll see we are real. It's not just discussion, amusement and challenge.
It's community. Many of us have known each other for nearly thirty years. Go and read the History of the Ship section.
https://shipoffools.com/the-faqs/ancient-history/
I liken it to my IRL U3A* groups. People who are interested in many things - some incredible experts in their field. I'm in awe of the things the people in my photography group have done. Now applying their minds to photography.
It's the same here.
Here on the Ship we have top organists, singers, engineers, nuclear physicists - and everyday people like me who had and have ordinary and interesting lives.
(*UK University of the Third Age)
There is nowhere like the Ship and nothing could replace it if it sunk.
That's why Admins and Hosts work so hard to drain the bilges and keep the sails trimmed.
It is in the nature of technological tools to change the human beings that use them. What's distinctive about AI is its capacity to impact what it means to be human, by virtue of its potential for intervening quite so comprehensively in what human beings do.
So, at the same time as I'm considering accepting the use of AI by individuals here, I'm aware there's a price we'd all paying (or at least consequences we'd be facing) for doing so.
One thought experiment this suggests is to gradually replace the other users of the forums until there is only one human being left, unaware that all the other characters they are engaging with are artificial. Then the last human being is replaced.
Did you read my post (above)? Because, if you did, you certainly ignored it.
I'm afraid I'm unable to deduce or infer how the short section of my post that you quote relates to your post. I made a point about how technology impacts humanity and thus these forums. You made a point about these forums and community. What is it that I'm missing?