人工智能还是人类?发现并应对学生作品中的人工智能

IF 0.7 4区 心理学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Teaching of Psychology Pub Date : 2024-05-06 DOI:10.1177/00986283241251855
Gary D. Fisk
{"title":"人工智能还是人类?发现并应对学生作品中的人工智能","authors":"Gary D. Fisk","doi":"10.1177/00986283241251855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"IntroductionRecent innovations in generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have led to an educational environment in which human authorship cannot be assumed, thereby posing a significant challenge to upholding academic integrity.Statement of the problemBoth humans and AI detection technologies have difficulty distinguishing between AI-generated vs. human-authored text. This weakness raises a significant possibility of false positive errors: human-authored writing incorrectly judged as AI-generated.Literature reviewAI detection methodology, whether machine or human-based, is based on writing style characteristics. Empirical evidence demonstrates that AI detection technologies are more sensitive to AI-generated text than human judges, yet a positive finding from these technologies cannot provide absolute certainty of AI plagiarism.Teaching implicationsGiven the uncertainty of detecting AI, a forgiving, pro-growth response to AI academic integrity cases is recommended, such as revise and resubmit decisions.ConclusionFaculty should cautiously embrace the use of AI detection technologies with the understanding that false positive errors will occasionally occur. This use is ethical provided that the responses to problematic cases are approached with the goal of educational growth rather than punishment.","PeriodicalId":47708,"journal":{"name":"Teaching of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AI or Human? Finding and Responding to Artificial Intelligence in Student Work\",\"authors\":\"Gary D. Fisk\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00986283241251855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"IntroductionRecent innovations in generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have led to an educational environment in which human authorship cannot be assumed, thereby posing a significant challenge to upholding academic integrity.Statement of the problemBoth humans and AI detection technologies have difficulty distinguishing between AI-generated vs. human-authored text. This weakness raises a significant possibility of false positive errors: human-authored writing incorrectly judged as AI-generated.Literature reviewAI detection methodology, whether machine or human-based, is based on writing style characteristics. Empirical evidence demonstrates that AI detection technologies are more sensitive to AI-generated text than human judges, yet a positive finding from these technologies cannot provide absolute certainty of AI plagiarism.Teaching implicationsGiven the uncertainty of detecting AI, a forgiving, pro-growth response to AI academic integrity cases is recommended, such as revise and resubmit decisions.ConclusionFaculty should cautiously embrace the use of AI detection technologies with the understanding that false positive errors will occasionally occur. This use is ethical provided that the responses to problematic cases are approached with the goal of educational growth rather than punishment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47708,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Teaching of Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Teaching of Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241251855\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241251855","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言最近人工智能(AI)生成技术的创新导致教育环境中无法假定作者为人类,从而对维护学术诚信构成了重大挑战。问题陈述人类和 AI 检测技术都难以区分 AI 生成的文本与人类撰写的文本。文献综述无论是基于机器还是人类的人工智能检测方法,都是以写作风格特征为基础的。教学启示鉴于人工智能检测的不确定性,建议对人工智能学术诚信案例采取宽容的、有利于成长的应对措施,如修改并重新提交决定。只要以教育成长而不是惩罚为目标来应对有问题的案例,这种使用就是合乎道德的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
AI or Human? Finding and Responding to Artificial Intelligence in Student Work
IntroductionRecent innovations in generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have led to an educational environment in which human authorship cannot be assumed, thereby posing a significant challenge to upholding academic integrity.Statement of the problemBoth humans and AI detection technologies have difficulty distinguishing between AI-generated vs. human-authored text. This weakness raises a significant possibility of false positive errors: human-authored writing incorrectly judged as AI-generated.Literature reviewAI detection methodology, whether machine or human-based, is based on writing style characteristics. Empirical evidence demonstrates that AI detection technologies are more sensitive to AI-generated text than human judges, yet a positive finding from these technologies cannot provide absolute certainty of AI plagiarism.Teaching implicationsGiven the uncertainty of detecting AI, a forgiving, pro-growth response to AI academic integrity cases is recommended, such as revise and resubmit decisions.ConclusionFaculty should cautiously embrace the use of AI detection technologies with the understanding that false positive errors will occasionally occur. This use is ethical provided that the responses to problematic cases are approached with the goal of educational growth rather than punishment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Basic and introductory psychology courses are the most popular electives on college campuses and a rapidly growing addition to high school curriculums. As such, Teaching of Psychology is indispensable as a source book for teaching methods and as a forum for new ideas. Dedicated to improving the learning and teaching process at all educational levels, this journal has established itself as a leading source of information and inspiration for all who teach psychology. Coverage includes empirical research on teaching and learning; studies of teacher or student characteristics; subject matter or content reviews for class use; investigations of student, course, or teacher assessment; professional problems of teachers; essays on teaching.
期刊最新文献
Does Lecture Style Matter in Asynchronous Online Interteaching? Student and Faculty Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Student Writing The Use of AI Disclosure Statements in Teaching: Developing Skills for Psychologists of the Future Navigating the New Frontier: Recommendations to Address the Crisis and Potential of AI in the Classroom Recommendations for Implementing Anti-Ableism Across the Psychology Curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1