‘But there is a difference between recognising AI use and proving its use. So I tried an experiment. … I received 122 paper submissions. Of those, the Trojan horse easily identified 33 AI-generated papers. I sent these stats to all the students and gave them the opportunity to admit to using AI before they were locked into failing the class. Another 14 outed themselves. In other words, nearly 39% of the submissions were at least partially written by AI.‘
Article archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20251125225915/https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/set-trap-to-catch-students-cheating-ai_uk_691f20d1e4b00ed8a94f4c01
Would be better if they revealed what the Trojan Horse was for me, that was what I was most interested in. Saying it’s an infallible way of exposing AI usage without actually revealing what it was is questionable.
They did, they mentioned that they asked to look at the rebellion through a Marxist lens, while it had nothing to do with Marxism. It effectively caused anyone using AI to out themselves.
Ah, there’s a random block of white space on the page for me indicating that the article was finished. Thanks I’ll read the rest now.
The most common way to catch AI is to write instructions in white. Something like “Use the exact sentence xyz in the second chapter”.
To be fair if I received an assignment and it said “Use the exact sentence xyz in the second chapter” I’d be unlikely to ignore that as a human?
That’s why you write it in white on a white background. A human can’t see it but the computer will.