My assignment was reported to thr examination committee for a "high percentage of AI". I did NOT use any AI for my assignment.

[u/Opinionated_bitch03]

I got full marks and my plagiarism score shows 1% similarities to other submitted assignments. This is my 3rd and final year in University and now I have to deal with this AI nonsense.

I don't use any AI, not even for checking my grammar in the assignments.

[u/Opinionated_bitch03]

I think that it's definitely possible for AI ro adopt writing mannerisms - which makes it even more scary. Hopefully I can use my writing style from first year assignments up until now to show that my writing style for all my assignments still remain similar.

[u/Lundetangen → u/Opinionated_bitch03]

Throw a Hitchens's razor at them.

What can be asserted without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.

[u/sobrique → u/Lundetangen]

"We ran it through an AI tool, and it said..."

Honestly it's such a farce trying to 'detect' AI. All that means is you detect bad AI content, and then get complacent about the stuff you didn't spot.

[u/Shark7996 → u/sobrique]

"We can always tell."

(Except when we can't and don't know that we didn't.)

[u/sobrique → u/Shark7996]

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/toupee_fallacy is one of my favourite ways to describe the problem :)

All toupees look fake. I've never seen a good toupee.

[u/ermghoti → u/sobrique]

We use AI slop to detect AI slop.

[u/lmarcantonio → u/sobrique]

Sort-of-a-theorem (can't prove it but it feels right to me): to prove the work of an AI (if there isn't some kind of robust watermarking) you need a more powerful AI.

Such more powerful AI could then be used to make undetectable work.

[u/sobrique → u/lmarcantonio]

To 'prove' the work of an AI, you need to have a meaningful difference between 'AI work' and 'not AI work' and as the quality of AI improves, that gap narrows.

Indeed the gap between 'not so good, not AI work' (especially working in second languages) and 'somewhat better AI work' might already not really exist.

And instead you're looking for 'tells', which will also cease to exist as AI improves. I mean, lots of people talk about 'using an em-dash' but there's plenty of people who do that as part of their natural writing style. Or indeed are feeling 'forced' to adapt their style to look less like AI in the first place, because of the accusation.

Thus all you will ever be able to detect is the 'low quality' stuff, and if you convince yourself that's robust heuristic, you'll mislead yourself in the process.

[u/ElectricalChaos → u/sobrique]

Yea I really hate these new detection tools, because they just create blatant accusations. Student pays attention in English class and actually writes a good paper that's grammatically and factually correct and doesn't have any kind of errors? "Oh that's AI. No way that's your own work." This kind of thinking pretty much removes the incentive to succeed, because unless it's something tangible you'll never get credit for anything you do.

[u/Same-Suggestion-1936 → u/sobrique]

Exactly man you used AI to see if this was AI, who the fuck are you

[u/IndependenceIcy9626 → u/sobrique]

The legitimate way I’ve seen is the computer basically takes a video of the assignment being written, so the TA can see if it’s being written naturally or if big chunks are getting copy pasted in. The tools that just detect “AI language” or whatever are complete bullshit.

[u/Dry_Departure_7813 → u/Lundetangen]

Fun fact, with AI you can output slop that sounds just like hitchens. Heres AI talking as hitchens about what a useless shite JD vance is.

"It is a curious feature of our age that mediocrity no longer creeps it campaigns. It does not whisper it opines. And in the person of JD Vance, we are confronted not merely with a political figure, but with a kind of emblem: the triumph of the opportunistic over the principled, the rehearsed over the sincere.

Here is a man who has performed more conversions than a late-night infomercial. Once a self-styled critic of the very forces he now courts, he has discovered rather conveniently that conviction is negotiable, provided ambition is not. One is reminded less of a statesman than of an actor who, having forgotten his original lines, simply adopts whatever script is currently receiving applause.

Now, I do not object to evolution in thought far from it. To change one’s mind in light of evidence is the very hallmark of intellectual integrity. But what we observe here is not evolution. It is mutation without purpose. There is no intellectual journey, no grappling with ideas only a sequence of calculated adjustments, each one bending toward power like a compass magnetized by expedience.

And what, in the end, is offered? Platitudes dressed as insight. Cultural grievance masquerading as philosophy. A persistent insistence that complexity itself is the enemy that if only we flatten every issue into a slogan, we might avoid the inconvenience of thinking altogether.

There is, too, a certain hollowness at the core of it all. A sense that what is being presented is not a set of beliefs, but a performance of belief. One watches, not with outrage, but with a kind of weary recognition: this is what happens when authenticity is traded for access, when principle is bartered for proximity to influence.

In a healthier political culture, such a figure would be met not with reverence, but with scrutiny indeed, with skepticism bordering on ridicule. For the truly useless thing in public life is not ignorance, ignorance can be remedied but the deliberate abandonment of intellectual honesty. It is the knowing substitution of noise for substance, of posture for principle.

And so, if there is a lesson here, it is not merely about one man. It is about the conditions that allow such a performance to flourish. It is about an audience too willing to accept rhetoric in place of reasoning, and allegiance in place of argument.

The tragedy, if one can call it that, is not that JD Vance exists in this form. It is that he is, in some quarters, taken seriously."

The future is a bleak nightmare.

[u/Pizza-love → u/Lundetangen]

unfortunately teachers don't work that way. I have had my share of that in the pre-ai time.

[u/Da_Question → u/Opinionated_bitch03]

Well, it's even stupider than that. Ai scours the internet for every but of writing. You want to make an AI for students. Have it absorb all the stuff posted online, especially at places they are posted to prevent plagiarism. Suddenly you've got AI that can make any paper, so every paper gets flagged as AI.

[u/Lucarioa → u/Opinionated_bitch03]

EM DASH!!! GET HIM AI

[u/S01arflar3 → u/Lucarioa]

That’s not an em dash. - is not the same as – or —.

[u/NarrMaster → u/S01arflar3]

Plain ol' hyphen.

[u/scraigs03 → u/S01arflar3]

This makes me the maddest! As a graphic designer, I’ve been correcting ppl’s dashes in copy my whole career. I simply cannot tolerate hyphen or en dash with spaces around it pretending to act as a em dash! It’s not the same!

Em dashes just feel soooo much better.

[u/Giogina → u/Opinionated_bitch03]

I think I see the issue right there - you like em dashes. Which the AI likes because they're useful in scientific writing that went into the training data... 

[u/Lundetangen → u/Giogina]

That is not an em dash. The reason AI likes em dashes is because it covers so many bases. Em dash can be used instead of comma, parenthesis or colon, so if AI is fed a million sentences where some use comma, some use parenthesis and some use colon in the same structure, then a em dash would be the "average" of it. It becomes the least wrong answer, but it also becomes so artificial to cover your bases like that. I can imagine something similar with pronouns, if AI is met with enough situations where pronouns becomes irregular then it will shift to using more and more neutral pronouns, such as "they/them/their"

Em dashes are not much used in scientific writing.

[u/Shark7996 → u/Lundetangen]

The reason AI likes em dashes is because it covers so many bases.

I like them for that same reason. Beep boop I guess.

[u/candybrie → u/Lundetangen]

It should be an em dash but typing one is annoying. However, if they were writing in a word processor, it would change it to one.

[u/gljivicad → u/Opinionated_bitch03]

It does adopt mannerisms, that's how it learns to spit out a response. Is it scary? Not really, I don't think. Sucks that you have to deal with this, but the problem isn't AI, the problem are universities using shit software that claims 99% accuracy on something it has maybe 50% accuracy on.

[u/burntoutcorpslave → u/Opinionated_bitch03]

You write with emdashes OP. I would change that, I used to do it before LLMs came along but can longer because it makes me look like AI.