Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="upstater, post: 5308816, member: 153"] This is what our AI Department was supposed to be about. But again, the way it is actually used has blown my mind. Let me give you one example: I taught a class on Literature and War. A student decided for his final project he would write on the work of 4 poets who experienced war focusing on their use of the collective "we" referring to prisoners of war or survivors. In the first 2/3rds of a 15 page paper, he did OK work of analyzing poems and interpreting the significance of the pronouns related to traumatic experience. It was a solid B paper in any other year prior to AI. Then, suddenly, at about page 10, the student wrote that the problem with generative AI in analyzing the preceding poems is that it wasn't very nuanced and that it was missing a lot of play in the poems themselves, it was resorting to analogy too much. Although I suspected much of the paper was AI, I am not taking on the role of plagiarism detector. But it occurred to me that in this kid's mind there was absolutely nothing wrong with taking the entirety of an AI generated essay and presenting it as his own. If he thought it was wrong, he wouldn't have admitted in the very same paper that this is what he had done. But curiously he then started to critique the AI interpretation of the poems. It's like some kind of critical impulse took over his brain and the last 5 pages were just ripping the AI analysis apart. For those of us in English, this is a classic LitCrit move. "This critic says this, and this is why he is wrong!" At that point I was scratching my head and trying to figure out what it was that I had in front of me, since part of me appreciated the last 5 pages. I was blown away. It was clear to me that students have jumped over an entire ethical realm that we believe exists naturally. It doesn't. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach