Searches for "AI Essay Writing" Up 2,041%
Plus, Sydney Morning Herald on cheating. Plus, two notes on ChatGPT. Fine, one is more of a rant. Plus, do Course Hero and Chegg feel neglected? We got you.
Issue 182
To join the 2,781 smart people who subscribe to “The Cheat Sheet,” enter your e-mail address below:
If you enjoy “The Cheat Sheet,” please consider joining the 11 amazing people who are chipping in a few bucks a month via Patreon. And to those who are, thank you!
Google Searches for “AI Essay Writing” Were Up 2,041% in December
An outfit called Tiny Wow, has determined that Google searches for the term “AI Essay Writing” went up just a wee bit:
Google trends analysis found that searches for ‘ai essay writing’ hit a massive high of 2,041% in December compared to the last five years. These findings emerge as a recent Guardian report reveals that a lecturer has found one fifth of submitted University essays have detected bot assistance from AI programs such as ChatGPT.
Here is The Guardian article referenced above and, sure enough, it does say:
An associate communications lecturer at Deakin University has detected the use of bots in almost one-fifth of assessments, sparking concerns that the use of artificial technology to cheat in exams is widespread.
Raise your hand if you’re surprised.
Anyway, a spokesperson from Tiny Wow said:
“The increased interest in AI technology is sure to have an impact on education, businesses and the general public. Utilising this incredible tool should be done so with caution, as the temptation to let an intelligent software do the work for you can open you up to potential risks of plagiarism or presenting inaccurate facts.”
Two More - Hopefully Quick - Notes on ChatGPT
One is that Vice ran an article this week with the absolutely bizarre headline:
AI Writing Tools Like ChatGPT Are the Future of Learning & No, It’s Not Cheating
Gee thanks, Vice. That ought to do it everyone. Vice says it’s not cheating so we can all go home. Thanks for coming.
The thing is, nowhere in the actual article does it say that. No one they interview says that. It seems they just kind of made it up. And this is not the first time. Vice’s coverage on education and academic integrity have been other-worldly - as in, they seem to be consistently not about this world. In 2021, I singled them out for a “dishonorable mention” for some of the worst reporting of the year. Kudos for consistency though.
Note two is more like an extended comment.
ChatGPT has renewed some focus on plagiarism detection technologies. And that, it seems, has reminded some folks how much they dislike them, how much it irked them that the data on which several of the detection systems rely were largely built with student writing - used without explicit permission or individual consent.
That’s always struck me as a petty criticism. I mean, I don’t know how you check to see if a student is using someone else’s work without checking someone else’s work. In a connected, digital age that means data. There’s just no other way to do it. And maybe the way it has been assembled isn’t great, but the alternative - simply not checking for plagiarism - is way worse.
But my real point is that those complaining about the underlying data of plagiarism detection systems seem to be not be critical of ChatGPT for doing the exact same thing - sweeping up billions of pieces of written work without consent, attribution or compensation and using them for corporate profit. It’s literally a million times worse than what the plagiarism detection folks have done.
In a real sense, ChatGPT is the world’s largest copyright eraser and exploiter of creative work. It’s a fancy, massive plagiarizer - which it appears many in academia are ready to declare a teaching tool. Though they’re somehow put off by the idea of using a plagiarism checker, because it uses other people’s work inappropriately.
Consider this paragraph from The Guardian last month:
The AI is trained on a huge sample of text taken from the internet, generally without explicit permission from the authors of the material used. That has led to controversy, with some arguing that the technology is most useful for “copyright laundering” – making works derivative of existing material without breaking copyright.
I guess I just want a little consistency. If you’re going to air a dislike for the tools that protect creative labor because they are built on misused creative labor, that’s cool. But then please be at least as upset by ChatGPT doing it too.
Sydney Morning Herald on Cheating
The Sydney Morning Herald has an editorial column on cheating this week.
It jumps off from ChatGPT, of course. But in it are a few points worth sharing. The columnist writes:
One student told me in a research interview how happy he is to be at university at this exact point in time because he can use this AI program to complete his assignments, knowing that it usually takes universities two to three years to catch up with new technologies. He said by that time, he will have graduated.
This is why, in Issue 170, I advised “retain, retain, retain” written work. And why schools that make it clear they will keep, and potentially reexamine, course work - and especially schools that have the power to revoke awarded degrees (see Issue 156) - can do much to prevent AI plagiarism in the first place.
The student referenced above is studying to be a teacher, by the way.
The piece concludes:
For university students, school students and every user online, from this time onwards we will not be sure who or what created the content we engage with online. Work reports, assignments, social media content, news stories, doctors reports. The list goes on. We should not be afraid of AI because it is not going away. Rather we should seek to shape and advance the knowledge we need to prosper in this environment.
That’s right, of course. It’s why I think AI detection technologies are going to play an exceptionally significant role both in and outside of academics.
Checking In on Chegg, Course Hero
With all the chatter about ChatGPT and cheating, I wonder if Course Hero and Chegg feel neglected.
Well, I’m here for them.
Chegg announced this week that it would “establish Student Mental Health Week from February 6 to February 12, 2023.”
That’s great. But this does not feel like altruism.
It feels like a marketing play for Chegg, which has routinely invested in the idea of student stress and mental health, that college is uniquely stressful now. I’m not saying it’s not. But if you sell academic shortcuts, repeating the idea that college is unusually difficult or even unreasonable is quite helpful.
The most gag-inducing part of Chegg’s press announcement was this:
The organizations involved include Born This Way Foundation, launched and led by Lady Gaga and her mother, Cynthia Germanotta, which supports youth mental health; the Jed Foundation (JED), which protects emotional wellbeing and prevents suicide for teens and young adults; the Inspiring Children Foundation, co-chaired by American singer-songwriter Jewel, which runs programs to nurture young people’s mental, emotional, and physical health; Young Invincibles, which leads advocacy efforts centered on improving the lives of young adults and increasing their access to mental health services; and the Varkey Foundation, which looks to improve the quality of education for every child by building the status of teachers around the world.
Sad. Just sad.
In the press announcement Chegg referenced:
Stanford University women’s basketball star Cameron Brink, who is Chegg’s newest student athlete brand ambassador
I guess I missed that. And I am sure Stanford University is thrilled to see their brand next to Chegg’s.
Brink helpfully links to Chegg on her Instagram page with 218,000 followers. It has a great photo of her in her Chegg hat. The Chegg link, by the way, clearly shows “influencer” in several places. Also, note that Brink is Chegg’s “newest” - see Issue 111 for more on another one.
In their PR announcement, Chegg also referenced their recent deal with Calm, the mindfulness and wellness app (see Issue 166). The company also shared results of a survey they commissioned about how students “feel anxious” about their classes.
As I said - they’re pretty invested in it.
Meanwhile, Course Hero has spun up something called the “faculty club,” which seems just as awful as it sounds and reminds me of that Groucho Marx line about refusing to join any club that would have him as member. Course Hero is happy to have teachers in their club. No teacher should want to be a member.
The club has a newsletter and videos from educators at Weber State University and Morehouse School of Medicine and CUNY and others. I did not browse all the videos and teaching “resources” offered by Course Hero, though I’d be surprised to have found one on how to stop a company from selling your course material without your permission.
In any case, just like other cheating profiteers, Course Hero is deeply and shamelessly invested in trying to look like a legitimate education provider and friend to faculty. They even made a club.