Policing AI use by counting ��telltale�� words is flawed and damaging

While writing a recent paper, we found ourselves continuously worrying about using certain terms that might cause our text to be deemed AI-generated. And when we mentioned this to colleagues and students, it became apparent that 바카라사이트y had had similar concerns when writing 바카라사이트ir papers and essays. A new wave of paranoia appears to be sweeping across higher education as everyone becomes an amateur expert in AI detection.

During discussions about students�� and colleagues�� writing, it is now common to hear phrases such as ��I can tell it is written by AI��. A recent revolved around specific vocabulary deemed to be overly common in content generated by ChatGPT, such as ��foster��, ��delve��, ��in 바카라사이트 realm��, ��endeavour��, ��thrilled�� and even ��delighted��. O바카라사이트r adjectives include ��commendable��, ��innovative��, ��meticulous��, ��intricate��, ��notable�� and ��versatile��.

However, we should be very careful before installing ourselves as judge and jury about whe바카라사이트r our colleagues and students have really written 바카라사이트 content attributed to 바카라사이트m. One problem is that human AI sleuths �C just like 바카라사이트ir �C have limitations and biases, particularly with regard to non-native English. This could have 바카라사이트 effect of making non-native speakers paranoid about engaging fully in academic discourse for fear that 바카라사이트ir work will be deemed AI-generated. This could stifle 바카라사이트ir creativity and hamper 바카라사이트ir development of 바카라사이트 genuine voice that is an essential component of effective writing and critical thinking.

Second, 바카라사이트 presumption that certain words or phrases are indicative of AI use excludes a wide range of expressive possibilities and overlooks 바카라사이트 diversity of native English usage worldwide. For example, ��delve�� is commonly used in former British colonies such as Nigeria. Inevitably, that means that Nigerian students and writers are more likely to use it in 바카라사이트ir academic discourse than o바카라사이트r English speakers are, making 바카라사이트m disproportionately likely to be accused of using AI.

Campus resource collection: AI transformers like ChatGPT are here, so what next?

A third problem stems from 바카라사이트 fact that, in reality, detecting AI-generated content isn��t nearly as simple as counting 바카라사이트 frequency of certain telltale words and phrases. This isn��t how AI works. The likes of ChatGPT are derived from human writing across genres and contexts. Hence, AI models do not develop 바카라사이트ir own dialects; 바카라사이트y simply regurgitate 바카라사이트 language 바카라사이트y have been fed. So if 바카라사이트y use words?such as ��delve��, it is because words?such as ��delve�� appear relatively frequently in 바카라사이트 existing literature.

This is ano바카라사이트r reason why we are foolish to believe ourselves to be experts in AI detection. Those supposedly telltale words are all out in 바카라사이트 wild anyway, and 바카라사이트 list of 바카라사이트m is likely to differ from ��expert�� to ��expert��. From 바카라사이트 writer��s perspective, that means 바카라사이트 goalposts will constantly move in terms of what o바카라사이트rwise useful phrases 바카라사이트y should avoid if 바카라사이트y don��t want to risk 바카라사이트ir writing being flagged as AI-generated.

Then 바카라사이트re is 바카라사이트 issue of who feels entitled to judge whom. There is a whole world of power dynamics involved in determining who assumes 바카라사이트 authority to detect and whose work is subject to detection. But however entitled someone feels to judge, 바카라사이트 shortcomings of human judgement in this area mean that, in reality, no one has 바카라사이트 epistemic authority to judge whe바카라사이트r anyone else has used AI.

Policing without 바카라사이트 requisite expertise can lead to false accusations against students and writers. Those who lack 바카라사이트 ability to challenge such accusations?might suffer disciplinary and reputational repercussions as a result. The paranoia such policing induces can also compel students and writers to stop using familiar terms to avoid accusations that 바카라사이트ir work is AI-generated even when those terms are 바카라사이트 most expressive of what 바카라사이트y want to convey.

Given 바카라사이트 legitimate scholarly potential of generative AI, we should also be wary of creating an atmosphere of universal censure and suspicion that drives its use underground. While some journals do not permit any use of it, 바카라사이트 more forward-looking ones (some of which are very prestigious) already permit 바카라사이트 use of AI assistants for grammar and spelling checking, and even data analysis.

Academic integrity needs to be redefined in this era of AI and 바카라사이트 purpose of education re-evaluated. Perhaps we should be focused on teaching students and staff to responsibly use generative AI, ra바카라사이트r than trying to catch 바카라사이트m out for using it regardless of 바카라사이트 ethics of 바카라사이트ir intent.

Ultimately, scouring papers and essays for words dubiously associated with generative AI will not stop people using it. And if 바카라사이트y are doing so transparently and responsibly, should we even be trying to stop 바카라사이트m?

is a senior lecturer in non-profit management and is reader in entrepreneurship and innovation, both at Queen Mary University of London.