Technical Communications Coordinator

Providing technical communications assistance to MUN's engineering students

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@AnnaRMills I think there is a difference between "not policing" and turning a blind eye. In cases where academic misconduct due to AI use is obvious, the rules of the institution must be applied.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@erica_d_stevens How are you assessing their reflection? Reading the texts aloud will demonstrate that they can read. Will the reflection be immediate and oral? Will they have to produce writing at any stage?

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@techczech A common AI tell—the em dash—has not changed for me at all. I still use it at the same frequency, perhaps even more frequently, because its existence is not the sign. It's that em dashes sometimes appear in every second paragraph of AI output. The same is true for the others.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@DominikPeters It's very inauthentic. No one writes anything remotely academic in those conditions. There is no ability to reference other authors. There is no spellcheck. No breaks. It would produce a first draft without polish and evidence.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@MuerteMariposa @MereSophistry A hyphen is not an em dash.
-/–/—
hyphen/en dash/em dash

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@john_p_d @pensandpoison "Decenter" is a word: https://t.co/FZIYwONLvB

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@Grady_Booch I also find the "If you are thinking about" odd because it is not a contrast from the initially presented word.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@Marc__Watkins I have problems with the technique, but mainly because of how it could inadvertently impact those who use screen readers. Any injection would have to be either so minor it would not meaningfully impact the submission or so obvious that it clearly states its purpose.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@erica_d_stevens @PeterJEymard I like the idea of authentic assessment. Writing a paper in the classroom (often by hand) under a 50-minute time limit does not resemble the way that academic articles are written.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@mayhewsw This is an area of debate at my institution. I have the same take as you: it can't be plagiarism because it is not copying the work of "another." For that reason, and because the process of detection is different, I prefer to call it "using an unauthorized aid" (i.e. cheating).

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@GirliePsychosis @safiyaaaay It could be. If all the sources from one paper match all the sources from another paper in the same order, even if the wording is different throughout, it is likely plagiarized. Having one or some of the same sources as another paper is generally not plagiarism.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@whitherapathy @eduleadership Certainly any cite-worthy paper would.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@mar_kar_ @pangram Another point is that the reviews, unlike the article being reviewed, are typically not published anywhere for the world to see. There is no need for perfect grammar or spelling. If the feedback can be used to improve/reject the article, the goal is achieved.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@moorehn I really don't like classifying AI use as plagiarism in academic misconduct regulations. I'd rather keep them separate since there are differences in detection and, in some cases, intention.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@JeremyNguyenPhD AI overuses a common writing trope, people notice and either mimic or eschew that trope, and then AI moves on to a new one. AI writing is simultaneously causing some ppl to write like AI and others to eliminate certain previously acceptable phrases/styles.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@emollick I do worry that its ubiquity will lead to humans adopting that style in their own writing, essentially training humans to write like AI rather than the other way around.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@Marc__Watkins The problem with pen-and-paper writing assessments is that they move away from authentic assessment. No writing outside of school/uni is done in a timed session on paper. It is done in waves on a computer, using a variety of digital tools.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@roman_janssen @fake_journals I've seen at least one instance of a DOI being reused by a journal: one article was retracted, and they gave the DOI to a new article. The IDF said that they can't really stop a publisher from doing it, but it is rare since DOIs are relatively inexpensive.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@NC_Renic I've had to reduce the marks I assign for grammatical accuracy and other language components. AI has eliminated many of those errors. Then you get the student who struggles with language, and you have mixed feelings about the mark they get for a hard-to-read paper w/ good ideas.

[Technical Communications Coordinator @TechCommMUNFEAS]

@rwlesq @keysmashbandit I do feel that the style of the one on the right is better. The one on the left refers to three things as "basically ____." The ChatGPT version is more formal (if that was the intent). The hedging is part of the formality, but I agree that it is overhedged.