Create accountLogin

Recent searches

No recent searches

Search options

Only available when logged in.
eupolicy.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
This Mastodon server is a friendly and respectful discussion space for people working in areas related to EU policy. When you request to create an account, please tell us something about you.

Administered by:

Server stats:

218
active users

eupolicy.social: AboutProfiles directoryPrivacy policy

Mastodon: AboutGet the appKeyboard shortcutsView source codev4.3.8

#cheating

4 posts4 participants0 posts today
Public
Wen

#Morrisons - #systematic #mispricing and #misreporting ‘points’

I have a ‘#loyalty card - for what it is worth. Noting discrepancies in till receipts as well as ‘points’ awarded (I donate mine to a charity) I conducted a little test over a couple of weeks ands compared till receipts with product prices and ‘points’ awarded and noticed a systematic #overpricing and under reporting of points that should have gone to #Macmillan. #Incompetence or #Cheating?

Check yours if you use the #supermarket.

Screenshot from Morrisons website
Public
MediaFaro Analysis

Eleven studies by Spanish scientist Rafael Luque are retracted due to fraudulent practices.

A new tool reveals the alleged cheating committed for years by the chemist, who was suspiciously prolific.

With his 11 studies eliminated by publishers, he is already “in the top 0.1% of the most retracted authors of all time”.

mediafaro.org/article/20250610

El País · Eleven studies by Spanish scientist Rafael Luque are retracted due to fraudulent practices.By Manuel Ansede
#Science#RafaelLuque#ScientificIntegrity
Public *
Mark Carrigan

How are students using Generative AI in UK universities?

Honestly I’m not sure how worried we should be about these findings from HEPI (n=1,041) given it seems the sector has got passed its initial inclination to try and prohibit. If we’re in a situation where only 12% of students are not using LLMs in their assessment then what matters is steering use towards epistemic agency* and way from LLMs supporting a turbo-charged transactional engagement with knowledge.

It’s interesting to contrast these findings with Anthropic’s study of university students using Claude, classified in terms of Bloom’s taxonomy:

The dynamics of cognitive outsourcing (and potential lock-in) differ as you move up from lower to higher-order thinking skills for students. I struggle to see a problem with students using LLMs to support understanding materials, much as I struggle to see a problem with academics using LLMs to produce materials which are easier to understand. Sure we might rapidly end up in a situation where this learning interaction is mediated by LLMs by default but I don’t see a fundamental difference in type from that being mediated by other kinds of digital platforms (e.g. the LMS) or outputs (e.g. Powerpoint). It’s a case of better or worse design rather than something human being lost through the introduction of a technological element.

I think applying and analysing by definition lend themselves to agentive engagements with knowledge. You can’t get the LLM to do something useful unless you’re thinking about what you’re asking, which means to at least some extent an epistemic capacity is being exercised. Certainly students could try and fail to do this, but that’s a different kind of problem to be addressed through the register of AI literacy. The pedagogical challenge comes in recognising how students are doing this in order to design learning processes which support increasingly purposive applications rather than just assuming they will be learning in the same way we did.

It’s evaluating and creating where it gets more concerning. If you’ve already developed these capabilities LLMs can be used to speed up the process (though a soft lock-in might result over time) or enhance the process in the activity I describe as rubber ducking. The problem arises if you haven’t learned how to do this without the LLM, such that the composite capacity (e.g. writing a report) develops in a way that has the LLM baked into it from the outset. For example reliance on LLMs for an outline only concerns me if students haven’t learned to do this without the LLM in the first place. To rely on it to critically evaluate your work and suggest room for improvement carries a similar risk of cognitive outsourcing which is unlikely to be addressed after university by most students.

This is a long-winded way of saying that we urgently need to get beyond the category of ‘AI’ in how we think about these pedagogical challenges. The relationality within the LLM becomes more important to recognise the further up the taxonomy we go. Exactly what ‘creating’ means can now vary immensely depending on the pattern of interaction the student has with the LLM.

It’s also interesting to see that:

  • “The main factors putting students off using AI are being accused of cheating (said by 53% of respondents) and getting false results or ‘hallucinations’ (51%). Just 15% are put off by the environmental impact of AI tools.
  • Students still generally believe their institutions have responded effectively to concerns over academic integrity, with 80% saying their institution’s policy is ‘clear’ and three-quarters (76%) saying their institution would spot the use of AI in assessments
  • The proportion saying university staff are ‘well-equipped’ to work with AI has jumped from 18% in 2024 to 42% in 2025.

I think students are over-estimating how effectively institutions can identify (and act!) on problematic LLM use and over-estimating the AI literacy of academic staff. If I’m right and student perception catches up to that reality, could ‘cheating’ as an inhibiting factor start to collapse from that figure of 51%?

*Thanks to my collaborator Peter Kahn for introducing me to this notion

#assessmentIntegrity#BloomSTaxonomy#cheating
Public *
Chris Alemany🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇸

I was thinking about AI ruining our education system by robbing our children and adult learners of the time they need to learn how to solve problems and I was reminded of my Grade 3 teacher, who is an objectively horrible person in my memory, yelling at me for using my Snoopy calculator (probably out of spite) during a test.

And there it is on eBay.

If I had $68 to blow on nostalgia, I'd almost buy it.

Madame Matt sucked... but she was right in this one case.

And AI will destroy our ability to learn if we are not vigilant about when and where and how it is used.

#AI #Education #learning #cheating #nostalgia #1980s
ebay.us/m/7qG05H

eBayVintage Snoopy Canon Math Learning Aid Electronic Game 1982 Calculator WORKS!! | eBayFind many great new & used options and get the best deals for Vintage Snoopy Canon Math Learning Aid Electronic Game 1982 Calculator WORKS!! at the best online prices at eBay! Free shipping for many products!
Public
Longreads

"When I asked him why he had gone through so much trouble to get to an Ivy League university only to off-load all of the learning to a robot, he said, 'It’s the best place to meet your co-founder and your wife.'"

James D. Walsh for New York magazine: nymag.com/intelligencer/articl

Intelligencer · Rampant AI Cheating Is Ruining Education Alarmingly FastBy James D. Walsh
#Longreads#College#ChatGPT
Public
ResearchBuzz: Firehose

Mashable: ‘Are We Dating the Same Guy?’ Facebook group lawsuit dismissed. “Last year, Chicago man Nikko D’Ambrosio sued Meta as well as women who dated him and their parents, women who commented on posts about him in the Facebook group, and moderators for the group, for defamation, invasion of privacy, doxxing, and more. On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Sunil R. Harjani tossed the complaint.”

https://rbfirehose.com/2025/05/17/mashable-are-we-dating-the-same-guy-facebook-group-lawsuit-dismissed/

ResearchBuzz: Firehose | Individual posts from ResearchBuzz · Mashable: ‘Are We Dating the Same Guy?’ Facebook group lawsuit dismissed | ResearchBuzz: Firehose
More from ResearchBuzz: Firehose
#cheating#dating#defamation
Public
contributopia

Un estratto dal Khrys' presso di questa settimana (framablog.org/2025/05/12/khrys):

"Is Everyone Using AI to Cheat Their Way Through College?
It’s not just the students : Multiple AI platforms now offer tools to leave AI-generated feedback on students’ essays. Which raises the possibility that AIs are now evaluating AI-generated papers, reducing the entire academic exercise to a conversation between two robots — or maybe even just one.

Gli elaborati scritti dagli studenti utilizzando l'intelligenza artificiale vengono valutati da strumenti basati sull'intelligenza artificiale e voilà, il cerchio si chiude. 😲

Questo il link all'articolo: news.slashdot.org/story/25/05/
Un grosso grazie, come al solito, a @Khrys
#AI #IA #IntelligenzaArtificiale #cheating #Framablog

@scuola @informapirata
@maupao

Tutti usano l'IA per imbrogliare durante gli studi universitari? Non si tratta solo degli studenti: molte piattaforme di intelligenza artificiale offrono ora strumenti per lasciare un feedback generato dall'intelligenza artificiale sugli elaborati degli studenti. Il che fa nascere la possibilità che le IA stiano valutando gli elaborati generati dall'IA, riducendo l'intero esercizio accademico a una conversazione tra due robot - o forse uno solo.
ExploreLive feeds
About