Original post by ProactiveMe
Are unis allowing students use ChatGpt?
For assessed work, no.
Unis are looking into how to harness ChatGPT. The Genie is out of the bottle so it's no use denying that people can access ChatGPT. Trying to punish students for using ChatGPT is like punishing students 20 years ago for using the 'internet'. Some engineering departments are looking at how to use ChatGPT to help students code - the issue being who owns the intellectual property on ChatGPT.
The short answer is that all unis are drawing up 'running rules' or policies on the use of ChatGPT. At one end is the requirement that students declare they have used ChatGPT - just as students would declare the books and journals they have referenced for their essay. At the other end of the spectrum, there is software that can detect if students have used AI to write parts of their essay (writing style, sentence construction etc) and they may use this AI to spy on whether students have used ChatGPT.
The short answer is that all unis are drawing up 'running rules' or policies on the use of ChatGPT. At one end is the requirement that students declare they have used ChatGPT - just as students would declare the books and journals they have referenced for their essay. At the other end of the spectrum, there is software that can detect if students have used AI to write parts of their essay (writing style, sentence construction etc) and they may use this AI to spy on whether students have used ChatGPT.
Original post by ProactiveMe
Are unis allowing students use ChatGpt?
It is currently not allowed at Coventry University for assignments.
Kind regards,
Juzer
Cov Uni Student Ambassador
Original post by mike23mike
Unis are looking into how to harness ChatGPT. The Genie is out of the bottle so it's no use denying that people can access ChatGPT. Trying to punish students for using ChatGPT is like punishing students 20 years ago for using the 'internet'. Some engineering departments are looking at how to use ChatGPT to help students code - the issue being who owns the intellectual property on ChatGPT.
The short answer is that all unis are drawing up 'running rules' or policies on the use of ChatGPT. At one end is the requirement that students declare they have used ChatGPT - just as students would declare the books and journals they have referenced for their essay. At the other end of the spectrum, there is software that can detect if students have used AI to write parts of their essay (writing style, sentence construction etc) and they may use this AI to spy on whether students have used ChatGPT.
The short answer is that all unis are drawing up 'running rules' or policies on the use of ChatGPT. At one end is the requirement that students declare they have used ChatGPT - just as students would declare the books and journals they have referenced for their essay. At the other end of the spectrum, there is software that can detect if students have used AI to write parts of their essay (writing style, sentence construction etc) and they may use this AI to spy on whether students have used ChatGPT.
No-one suggested penalising students for using the 'internet', because there is nothing about using it that would constitute scholarly malpractice. How you access sources is neither here nor there - whether online or by rummaging in a dusty library corridor. The 'internet' doesn't write a text for you, it merely allows you to access sources quickly and easily. ChatGPT produces simulated essays - and it prides itself on producing human-sounding writing, although it is actually very bad at this (what it spits out is obviously algorithm-generated).
I can't comment on coding, but the idea that ChatGPT is somehow an aid to writing as opposed to a threat to it is absurd. ChatGPT is trained on a dataset of human writing, and it already spits out horrible generic nonsense. Imagine a (near-)future world in which no-one can actually write, everything is written with ChatGPT, and thus the training dataset on which it is based becomes increasingly comprised of its own outputs. The levelling down of writing and thus of thinking to absolute banality, the average of the average of the average, is the inevitable telos, along with the radical deskilling of the species. Writing isn't an adjunct to thinking, it is a form of thinking. That's why writing is hard - you don't really know what you think until you try to set it out in writing. When you start to write, you find that what was in your head turns out not to be as clear as you thought it was. As the practice of writing is lost we will lose the capacity for independent, rigorous thought. Why think about something when you can just ask an AI to spit out a banal summary of what everyone else thinks about it? Saves time, right?! Great stuff.
Original post by ProactiveMe
Are unis allowing students use ChatGpt?
Most universities have published new regulations and guidance on this over the last few months, you will need to check your institution's regs and guidance.
But generally speaking: no, ChatGPT isn't allowed. There is a simple reason why: when you submit your assessment you declare that it is wholly your own work. If you have used ChatGPT to write or help you write it, then it isn't your own work. So that is academic malpractice. It will also be a really bad essay, because ChatGPT is awful at writing essays. It will be a weak essay that offers up generic and boring responses to questions rather than displaying any kind of independent critical thought.
Original post by Anonymous
No-one suggested penalising students for using the 'internet', because there is nothing about using it that would constitute scholarly malpractice. How you access sources is neither here nor there - whether online or by rummaging in a dusty library corridor. The 'internet' doesn't write a text for you, it merely allows you to access sources quickly and easily. ChatGPT produces simulated essays - and it prides itself on producing human-sounding writing, although it is actually very bad at this (what it spits out is obviously algorithm-generated).
I can't comment on coding, but the idea that ChatGPT is somehow an aid to writing as opposed to a threat to it is absurd. ChatGPT is trained on a dataset of human writing, and it already spits out horrible generic nonsense. Imagine a (near-)future world in which no-one can actually write, everything is written with ChatGPT, and thus the training dataset on which it is based becomes increasingly comprised of its own outputs. The levelling down of writing and thus of thinking to absolute banality, the average of the average of the average, is the inevitable telos, along with the radical deskilling of the species. Writing isn't an adjunct to thinking, it is a form of thinking. That's why writing is hard - you don't really know what you think until you try to set it out in writing. When you start to write, you find that what was in your head turns out not to be as clear as you thought it was. As the practice of writing is lost we will lose the capacity for independent, rigorous thought. Why think about something when you can just ask an AI to spit out a banal summary of what everyone else thinks about it? Saves time, right?! Great stuff.
I can't comment on coding, but the idea that ChatGPT is somehow an aid to writing as opposed to a threat to it is absurd. ChatGPT is trained on a dataset of human writing, and it already spits out horrible generic nonsense. Imagine a (near-)future world in which no-one can actually write, everything is written with ChatGPT, and thus the training dataset on which it is based becomes increasingly comprised of its own outputs. The levelling down of writing and thus of thinking to absolute banality, the average of the average of the average, is the inevitable telos, along with the radical deskilling of the species. Writing isn't an adjunct to thinking, it is a form of thinking. That's why writing is hard - you don't really know what you think until you try to set it out in writing. When you start to write, you find that what was in your head turns out not to be as clear as you thought it was. As the practice of writing is lost we will lose the capacity for independent, rigorous thought. Why think about something when you can just ask an AI to spit out a banal summary of what everyone else thinks about it? Saves time, right?! Great stuff.
As I said, there is a spectrum of views with one side holding the above view whilst other academics are looking at the potential of ChatGPT - a webinar from a little-known university called Harvard explained how ChatGPT can be used positively. As I stated there is 'hunter-seeker' AI software available that can detect if ChatGPT has written a paragraph or section of an essay. Lots of unis are signing up for this software - available on Turnitin - so different universities will take different stances.
You missed my point about the 'internet' in that any new innovation in technology is seen by some nay-sayers as heralding the end of the world. A similar situation arose when journals first became available electronically; a group of nay-sayers felt that students were cheating because they could access journals online in an instant.
Original post by mike23mike
Unis are looking into how to harness ChatGPT. The Genie is out of the bottle so it's no use denying that people can access ChatGPT. Trying to punish students for using ChatGPT is like punishing students 20 years ago for using the 'internet'. Some engineering departments are looking at how to use ChatGPT to help students code - the issue being who owns the intellectual property on ChatGPT.
The short answer is that all unis are drawing up 'running rules' or policies on the use of ChatGPT. At one end is the requirement that students declare they have used ChatGPT - just as students would declare the books and journals they have referenced for their essay. At the other end of the spectrum, there is software that can detect if students have used AI to write parts of their essay (writing style, sentence construction etc) and they may use this AI to spy on whether students have used ChatGPT.
The short answer is that all unis are drawing up 'running rules' or policies on the use of ChatGPT. At one end is the requirement that students declare they have used ChatGPT - just as students would declare the books and journals they have referenced for their essay. At the other end of the spectrum, there is software that can detect if students have used AI to write parts of their essay (writing style, sentence construction etc) and they may use this AI to spy on whether students have used ChatGPT.
Don't you think allowing ChatGPT is like someone else handling your assignments?
And if Unis were to allow students declare use of ChatGPT in their essays, would the mode of referencing still be normal or you'll reference ChatGPT?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is ChatGPT a Friend or foe?
- chat gpt is incredible… too good to be true?
- Is using chat GPT to assist with assignments ‘cheating?
- chatgpt
- will university find out in future if someone uses CHATGPT
- OpenAI reveals Sora, a tool to make instant videos from written prompts
- HELP!!!!!
- How accurate is ChatGPT at grading assignments?
- Chatgpt
- Personal Statement by AI
- Plagiarism?
- ai and plagiarism checker for personal statement
- Can someone tell me if my EPQ title is good
- What are the best places online for maths revision and why?
- Winston AI detector for personal statements
- Linear algebra (Gram-Schmidt)
- URGENT!! UCAS personal statement checker
- Rules against using chatGPT or similar on TSR?
- ChatGPT on assignments
- Will UCAS use GPT Zero for PS
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%Trending
Last reply 3 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%
