The rapid proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) on college campuses has spawned an escalating "arms race," with professors and students caught in a cycle of anxiety, false accusations, and increasingly desperate attempts to outsmart AI detectors. The introduction of generative AI tools has sparked concerns about cheating, with some institutions imposing strict penalties for suspected academic dishonesty.
To counter this, a growing number of students are turning to a new class of "humanizers" – software designed to detect and adjust text so that it doesn't appear as having been generated by an AI. These tools offer a range of features, from basic grammar checks to more sophisticated algorithms that analyze sentence structure and syntax.
However, the competition between AI detectors and humanizers has raised questions about the reliability and effectiveness of these tools. Many experts have criticized AI detectors for being overly simplistic and prone to false positives, which can lead to innocent students being accused of cheating.
To address this issue, some companies are launching new software that allows students to track their browser activity or writing history, providing proof that they wrote the material themselves. However, humanizers can sometimes outsmart these detection methods, making it difficult for institutions to distinguish between genuine student work and AI-generated content.
The situation has become so contentious that some students have taken matters into their own hands, using tools like Superhuman's Authorship to surveil themselves on Google Docs or Microsoft Word as they write. This allows them to track when they've used Wikipedia or Grammarly, reducing the risk of false accusations.
As the debate rages on, experts are calling for a more nuanced approach to addressing AI-related academic dishonesty. "The most important question is not so much about detection, it's really about where's the line," says Annie Chechitelli, Turnitin's chief product officer. "We need to have a conversation with students and faculty about what counts as acceptable use of AI in their work."
Ultimately, the shift towards more monitoring and surveillance of student activity may be unsustainable for many institutions. As Tricia Bertram Gallant, director of academic integrity at UC San Diego, notes, "If it's an unsupervised assessment, don't bother trying to ban AI."
To counter this, a growing number of students are turning to a new class of "humanizers" – software designed to detect and adjust text so that it doesn't appear as having been generated by an AI. These tools offer a range of features, from basic grammar checks to more sophisticated algorithms that analyze sentence structure and syntax.
However, the competition between AI detectors and humanizers has raised questions about the reliability and effectiveness of these tools. Many experts have criticized AI detectors for being overly simplistic and prone to false positives, which can lead to innocent students being accused of cheating.
To address this issue, some companies are launching new software that allows students to track their browser activity or writing history, providing proof that they wrote the material themselves. However, humanizers can sometimes outsmart these detection methods, making it difficult for institutions to distinguish between genuine student work and AI-generated content.
The situation has become so contentious that some students have taken matters into their own hands, using tools like Superhuman's Authorship to surveil themselves on Google Docs or Microsoft Word as they write. This allows them to track when they've used Wikipedia or Grammarly, reducing the risk of false accusations.
As the debate rages on, experts are calling for a more nuanced approach to addressing AI-related academic dishonesty. "The most important question is not so much about detection, it's really about where's the line," says Annie Chechitelli, Turnitin's chief product officer. "We need to have a conversation with students and faculty about what counts as acceptable use of AI in their work."
Ultimately, the shift towards more monitoring and surveillance of student activity may be unsustainable for many institutions. As Tricia Bertram Gallant, director of academic integrity at UC San Diego, notes, "If it's an unsupervised assessment, don't bother trying to ban AI."
. One tool gets exposed as being too simplistic, and another one pops up to try and outsmart it. It's exhausting for students and profs alike 
. And don't even get me started on the humanizers – they're like AI detectors's doppelgangers 
. It's all just a big cycle of cat and mouse. I mean, can we please just have a conversation about what's acceptable use of AI in our work? Like, is it okay to use Grammarly or Google Docs as a reference? 
And shouldn't we be focusing on teaching students how to properly cite sources rather than trying to police their every move? It feels like we're missing the point altogether 
.
.
some students are resorting to surveilling themselves while writin so they dont get accused of cheating 
its like we're all just tryna keep up with these AI tools lol meanwhile, experts say we need a more nuanced approach to deal with this problem 
they're just creating a new way for people to cheat even more 
like, who needs software to write something that sounds human anyway? It's not like it's rocket science 
or anything. And don't even get me started on the whole "tracking browser activity" thing 
that just sounds like a massive invasion of privacy 
and I'm all about student autonomy, you know? 
like, have you seen those things in action? 
they're always getting it wrong and accusing innocent people 
.
but can't we just have a conversation about how AI is being used in education instead of trying to create these super complicated systems? 
it's like, we're not even having a debate anymore, we're just escalating into this "arms race" 
. I mean, can you imagine having to use some fancy software to track your own writing activity just to avoid getting accused of cheating? It's like, we're already stressed out enough about exams and assignments without having to worry about our browser history too 
.
And what's with the emphasis on surveillance and monitoring? Are we really preparing our young people for a society where they're constantly being watched? That's just not right. We need to have a conversation about the ethics of AI use in education, not just how to detect and prevent cheating. 
. It's all very high-tech and stressful, especially when it comes to browser activity tracking... what's next? 
. Like, what counts as acceptable use of AI in student work? Who gets to decide? 
It's all just getting too complicated and surveillance-y 
#AcademicIntegrityMatters
. Maybe Annie Chechitelli is onto something with her comment about having "a conversation" with students and faculty? 
. I don't know if institutions can keep up with this stuff. It's all just so... stressful 
. Can't we find a better balance here? Like, Annie Chechitelli says, shouldn't we be talking about what counts as acceptable use of AI in our work?