It takes one hell of a toll to try to do verbal exams 1:1 on students to evaluate them. In person exams in a monitored room are not so easy either... not that we have a huge problem now with undetectable ear plugs or smart glasses or anal beads or remote controls... but that tech progresses and demand will increase with more in person testing. A radio shielded test room would work well until local run AI fits in your underwear. Then you have an increasing number of IEPs so you can't even do a quiz without extra BS because more and more haven't adapted to testing.

Sure, I do not do well with testing but I managed to adapt and survive; it's not fair that I couldn't thrive in that environment but that is life. We're raising generations of artificially disabled adults because incompetent parents are over compensating by making demands on everybody but themselves.

Also keep in mind, evaluations take away TIME from learning. Sure it could be part of learning but it is not.

Frankly, I allow the cheating unofficially. If the society can't produce a minimum level of honesty (and it is made abundantly clear what is dishonest,) a corrupt population is going to be represented by a corrupt leadership and the incompetence comes with all that. The USA's decline has been preceded by increased corruption of the public and those of us in education must have been noticing a trend. I know I have for decades. The score is all that matters; understanding does not - for the majority - much more so for the parents (who only care about the child getting a job in the distant future. "Fake it until you make it" seems like mantra to Gen X parents.)

The attitude of firing officials who publish bad results; demanding the messengers deliver good results, is not far from the parents/students blaming the educator for poor results. As Mencken said:
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

Dude just read the post, laugh and move on.

we have old billionaires and politicians in charge of everything today. They don't care about profits above extending their lives; far too selfish! They will pursue anything that grabs their attention.

Perhaps you should be realizing by now that homework is no longer a viable way to test how well students actually know the subject matter, and the only viable way to do so is in-class tests/exercises - frequent enough and worth enough of the grade to force them to study between lessons.

OR, alternatively, you could just keep doing what you're doing, and instead, in effect grade people on:

Comparably poor grades:
* People who actually do the work by hand
* "AI N00bs" who let stuff like that slip through

Comparably good grades:
* AI-experienced people who know enough to skim over the work, do multiple passes, or issue prompts that prevent such tells from getting into the work

Wherein, in effect, your net reward/punishment is inverted vs. what you should want it to be.

Closing one's eyes and ears to the fact that the environment students operate in has changed isn't an acceptable option. Education must adapt. And watermarks, BTW, will only catch "the n00bs"; more experienced / up to date students will keep track of what watermarks and what doesn't, and use AIs that don't watermark, or de-watermarking services.

I'll repeat: watermarks are anti-marketing. They discourage use.

I don't think that makes the document any less your own than having a human copy editor conduct a similar review which has been done since forever.

Which is what I've been saying as well. If all you're doing is asking for suggestions to something you have already written, using AI is no different than using a human editor. It's your work. It's been written. You're just looking for advice on how to improve it.

This is completely different than people who tell AI what they want and it does all the work.

There is a big effort to discourage, limit, or ban birth control. Usually religion based because that is how they boost their numbers; not conversion. They are not so confident they can honestly grow their numbers so they resort to conditioning and indoctrination. I like to point out to people: if they are really able to think for themselves, then why are they in their parents religion?

Luckily, our fascist government will work hard for "the corporations" (mega rich who own/run them, who still fear death) to discover why there is something to young blood and make some kind of drug... they've probably not found it already because they are fixated on the blood of youths (maybe some Epstein like appeal?) when it's actually something else creating the benefits which only slightly shows up from young blood transfusionsâ¦

SynthID in text genuinely is invisible. The probability shifts are small, and all the pathways are valid pathways to express the same thought.

And no, you cannot "collide" text watermarks. At best, it'll only have the latter one's watermark. At worst, both.

It'll still get tagged by SynthID.

You have to use a non-watermarking LLM. Saying "Don't do anything that will watermark it" doesn't help.

Eh, I'm sure it'll be fine. No need to be alarmist, like they were about Trump.

Well yeah about that.....

So how is this different from the way it's always worked? It's never been difficult to spot AI slop precisely because of how similar it all is.

I mean that's a horrible systems for it to cost that much for a search. My wife would've been fired for even suggesting a database that poorly coded. Let me guess: The system was built by people using LLM's to code.

Watermarks are "marketing"?

What user wants watermarks?

It's not hard to see how this can backfire. People treat watermarks as the Word of God. But let's say, for example, a journalist, in an article, quotes a White House press statement for something, but the White House used AI. Since they don't "measure how much a human contributed", and detect the watermark in the White House statement in the journalist's article, they'll just flag the whole journalist's article as AI.

And honestly, "not measuring how much a human contributed" is IMHO a massive flaw in general even if the author was using AI. If the person wrote an article, and then told an AI, "correct my spelling, grammar, and poor phrasing", that's IMHO entirely different from the person just telling an AI "Write this article for me", and just pasting whatever it spits out in as their own, whole cloth. Contribution assessment is, IMHO, essential for fairness. And also, eminently doable. It is perfectly technologically possible to not just see, "does this signature exist", but even get a sense of exactly what the AI contributed vs. what it didn't.