Chatgpt introduces a new vector of being a bad collaborator.

Previously you could write a lot of text that was wrong, but claim that you at least tried.

Now, we need to get used to putting it in the same category that a peer did not contribute anything and that they contributed ai slop.

This is one of the reasons why juniors will vanish - there is no room for "I tried my best".

Edit: clarity

I am a PhD student who teaches part-time in some courses, and a difference I have personally ran into is that disinterested students still had agency over what they had written. When you present something, or hand something in that you have written, you still display the information that you know at that time. This makes feedback helpful because you can latch it onto SOMETHING.

When I get obvious LLM-handins, who am I correcting? What point does it have? I can say anything, and the student will not be able to integrate it, because they have no agency or connection to "their" work. Its a massive waste of everyone's time, I have another 5 student in line who actually have engaged with their work, and who will be able to integrate feedback, and their time is being taken by someone who will not be able to understand or use the feedback.

This is the big difference. For a bad student, failing and making errors is a way to progress and integrate feedback, for an LLM-student, its pointless.

No, now there is more people who are not learning. Previously students had to learn. Group 2 was very small because you had to be very lucky to get your assignments done for you without learning at least something yourself. And if you half assed your assignment it would be noticeable by the lecturer. Now it is a no brainer for many people to be in group 2

Quantity is a quality all its own, it's significantly easier to be lazy with LLMs than with oldschool cheating methods, this changes the equilibrium point at which people will cheat. So if you're a student, you're now even more likely to be dragging along deadweight than you were a decade ago.

For category 1, they can too fall into temptation of just not trying hard enough solving the homework/assignment. This is interesting era I think.

yup, AI is next level useful when treated as a rubber duck + search engine.

Its absolutely a backstabbing saboteur if you blindly trust everything it outputs.

Inquisitive skepticism is a super power in the age of AI atm.

Google, Anthropic and OpenAI are well aware of this. They've pushed out features like study mode and guided learning, but they're barely a band aid fix. The people who want to bypass learning and just get the degree now have a cheaper way. Instead of paying someone else to do their homework, they pay a bot.

> ChatGPT didn't ruin anything. Lazy students did.

That's a very unuseful way of looking at it. It solves nothing.

ChatGPT has created a problem, we need to look ways of solving it. Unregulated technology is harmful, we need regulations that limit the bad use cases.

To just blame people so, lets be real, your shares on bit tech corporations go up is destructive for society. This tools, like social media, are harming people and should be regulated to work for us. If they cannot then shut them off.

The difference in 20$ and 200$ + significantly more effort.

I don't think these students necessarily would have bought.

Why should that be a problem? Code no longer needs to be understood. If there are any problems, code can be trivially regenerated with updated descriptive prompts.