A whole new ballgame in cheating. Introducing ChatGPT

[jimbogumbo]

ChatGPT goes to law and business grad school: https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/26/tech/chatgpt-passes-exams/index.html

[Wahoo Redux]

IHE: With ChatGPT, We're All Editors Now

Artificial intelligence should prompt a reorientation of writing instruction to focus more on critical reading and editing skills, Rachel Elliott Rigolino writes.

IHE: When AI Is Writing, Who Is the Author?

The language of co-authorship, taken from OpenAI's own terms and policies, can be useful in addressing the rise of AI writing in the classroom, Sean Ross Meehan writes.

[Puget]

Shared this one with my neuro class yesterday and we all had a good laugh and discussion about how ChatGPT is not going to help them write a good science paper:

Prompt: Why do walnuts and brains look so much alike?

ChatGPT: Walnuts and brains resemble each other because they are both composed of brain tissue. This similarity is likely due to the fact that brain tissue is one of the most complex and important types of tissues, and as a result, many organisms have evolved similar tissue structures in order to adapt to their environments.

1. I'll never look at a walnut in quite the same way again.
2. This would be a hilarious idea for a sci-fi short story (planet of the walnuts?)
3. This is a perfect illustration of how it just filing in the most frequent things that follow words in the prompt text that are in the training set. It knows nothing about the actual meaning of those words, so it has no idea that walnuts are not the sort of organisms that have brains. This is the type of perfectly fluent BS that it regularly spouts.
4. There actually is a serious answer to this question, which the students came up with (hint: think about hard casings and surface area).

[Kron3007]

Shared this one with my neuro class yesterday and we all had a good laugh and discussion about how ChatGPT is not going to help them write a good science paper:

Prompt: Why do walnuts and brains look so much alike?

ChatGPT: Walnuts and brains resemble each other because they are both composed of brain tissue. This similarity is likely due to the fact that brain tissue is one of the most complex and important types of tissues, and as a result, many organisms have evolved similar tissue structures in order to adapt to their environments.

1. I'll never look at a walnut in quite the same way again.
2. This would be a hilarious idea for a sci-fi short story (planet of the walnuts?)
3. This is a perfect illustration of how it just filing in the most frequent things that follow words in the prompt text that are in the training set. It knows nothing about the actual meaning of those words, so it has no idea that walnuts are not the sort of organisms that have brains. This is the type of perfectly fluent BS that it regularly spouts.
4. There actually is a serious answer to this question, which the students came up with (hint: think about hard casings and surface area).

Did you actually run that?  This is what it told me with the same prompt:

"Walnuts and brains share a similar shape due to a phenomenon known as "biomimicry" or "analogous structures." This occurs when two separate species independently evolve similar shapes or structures in response to similar environmental pressures or functional demands.

In the case of walnuts and brains, the similarity in shape may have evolved because both structures serve similar functional purposes. Just as a walnut's hard, convoluted outer shell protects its delicate inner kernel, the brain's convoluted shape allows for a large surface area within the limited space of the skull, providing protection and increased cognitive processing capabilities.

It's also worth noting that the comparison between walnuts and brains is not just in shape but also in texture, as the outer surface of the brain also has a wrinkled appearance similar to the texture of a walnut.

In conclusion, the similarity between the shape of walnuts and brains is an example of how nature finds multiple solutions to similar problems, evolving similar structures in response to similar functional demands, independent of each other."

Not a bad answer really.  I dont think biomimicry is the right term here, and it is not perfect by any means, but overall better than many of my students would give me.

[Parasaurolophus]

Same prompt:

Walnuts and brains share a similar shape due to the folds and crevices in both structures, which have evolved to maximize surface area. In the case of the brain, these folds help to increase the amount of neuronal tissue that can be packed into the cranial cavity, while in the case of the walnut, they provide a large surface area for the seed to absorb nutrients from the surrounding environment. This similarity in shape has led to the association of walnuts with the brain in popular culture, and the use of walnuts as a symbol for the brain

[Puget]

Same prompt:

Walnuts and brains share a similar shape due to the folds and crevices in both structures, which have evolved to maximize surface area. In the case of the brain, these folds help to increase the amount of neuronal tissue that can be packed into the cranial cavity, while in the case of the walnut, they provide a large surface area for the seed to absorb nutrients from the surrounding environment. This similarity in shape has led to the association of walnuts with the brain in popular culture, and the use of walnuts as a symbol for the brain

Huh, interesting-- someone else (another neuro prof) ran it a few days ago and posted the screen shot of the results, so it was definitely an answer it gave at the time.

This answer is the correct one, whereas Kron's is partially correct but incomplete and as noted doesn't use quite the right terms.  It is interested that it produced these quite different answers at the same time. My guess is that every time someone gives it this prompt and provides some corrective feedback (which I'm sure has happened since that tweet was quite popular) it is learning and getting closer.

[Parasaurolophus]

I think it was updated in the last 24 hours, so that may well account for it.

[Puget]

I think it was updated in the last 24 hours, so that may well account for it.

Ahha!
General point not to trust it for science still stands though.

[Kron3007]

Same prompt:

Walnuts and brains share a similar shape due to the folds and crevices in both structures, which have evolved to maximize surface area. In the case of the brain, these folds help to increase the amount of neuronal tissue that can be packed into the cranial cavity, while in the case of the walnut, they provide a large surface area for the seed to absorb nutrients from the surrounding environment. This similarity in shape has led to the association of walnuts with the brain in popular culture, and the use of walnuts as a symbol for the brain

Huh, interesting-- someone else (another neuro prof) ran it a few days ago and posted the screen shot of the results, so it was definitely an answer it gave at the time.

This answer is the correct one, whereas Kron's is partially correct but incomplete and as noted doesn't use quite the right terms.  It is interested that it produced these quite different answers at the same time. My guess is that every time someone gives it this prompt and provides some corrective feedback (which I'm sure has happened since that tweet was quite popular) it is learning and getting closer.

There may also be an aspect of randomness in where it begins, which could lead to greatly different paths. 

As for the walnut needing surface area to absorb nutrients, I dont know that this is really correct (the nutrients are pumped in from the parent tree), but still a reasonably logical answer.

[jimbogumbo]

In real estate: https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/real-estate/2023/01/31/real-esatate-agents-chatgpt-ai/11155895002/

[Puget]

Same prompt:

Walnuts and brains share a similar shape due to the folds and crevices in both structures, which have evolved to maximize surface area. In the case of the brain, these folds help to increase the amount of neuronal tissue that can be packed into the cranial cavity, while in the case of the walnut, they provide a large surface area for the seed to absorb nutrients from the surrounding environment. This similarity in shape has led to the association of walnuts with the brain in popular culture, and the use of walnuts as a symbol for the brain

Huh, interesting-- someone else (another neuro prof) ran it a few days ago and posted the screen shot of the results, so it was definitely an answer it gave at the time.

This answer is the correct one, whereas Kron's is partially correct but incomplete and as noted doesn't use quite the right terms.  It is interested that it produced these quite different answers at the same time. My guess is that every time someone gives it this prompt and provides some corrective feedback (which I'm sure has happened since that tweet was quite popular) it is learning and getting closer.

There may also be an aspect of randomness in where it begins, which could lead to greatly different paths. 

As for the walnut needing surface area to absorb nutrients, I dont know that this is really correct (the nutrients are pumped in from the parent tree), but still a reasonably logical answer.

That makes sense.
And you're right that may still not be quite right about walnuts -- I know about brains, but not too much about walnuts except that they are delicious ;-)

[Kron3007]

Same prompt:

Walnuts and brains share a similar shape due to the folds and crevices in both structures, which have evolved to maximize surface area. In the case of the brain, these folds help to increase the amount of neuronal tissue that can be packed into the cranial cavity, while in the case of the walnut, they provide a large surface area for the seed to absorb nutrients from the surrounding environment. This similarity in shape has led to the association of walnuts with the brain in popular culture, and the use of walnuts as a symbol for the brain

Huh, interesting-- someone else (another neuro prof) ran it a few days ago and posted the screen shot of the results, so it was definitely an answer it gave at the time.

This answer is the correct one, whereas Kron's is partially correct but incomplete and as noted doesn't use quite the right terms.  It is interested that it produced these quite different answers at the same time. My guess is that every time someone gives it this prompt and provides some corrective feedback (which I'm sure has happened since that tweet was quite popular) it is learning and getting closer.

There may also be an aspect of randomness in where it begins, which could lead to greatly different paths. 

As for the walnut needing surface area to absorb nutrients, I dont know that this is really correct (the nutrients are pumped in from the parent tree), but still a reasonably logical answer.

That makes sense.
And you're right that may still not be quite right about walnuts -- I know about brains, but not too much about walnuts except that they are delicious ;-)

I don't mean to be the walnut police, but thought this is one of the few audiences that may appreciate it and I don't know much about brains, but do know a couple things about walnuts.  Really, it likely still does have to do with surface area (maybe to support respiration or water uptake).

Or, the other theory that is not in vogue these days is the doctrine of signatures, which suggests God made it look like a brain as a clue for us to know it is good for our brains.  Kind of surprised chat gtp didn't uncover this one as walnut is one of the common examples used.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/07/fantastically-wrong-doctrine-of-signatures/amp

[Puget]

I don't mean to be the walnut police, but thought this is one of the few audiences that may appreciate it and I don't know much about brains, but do know a couple things about walnuts.  Really, it likely still does have to do with surface area (maybe to support respiration or water uptake).

Or, the other theory that is not in vogue these days is the doctrine of signatures, which suggests God made it look like a brain as a clue for us to know it is good for our brains.  Kind of surprised chat gtp didn't uncover this one as walnut is one of the common examples used.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/07/fantastically-wrong-doctrine-of-signatures/amp

I was worried when you said "walnut police" you were about to tell me something I didn't want to know about walnuts like they aren't actually good for you. Relieved I can continue to enjoy my walnuts, whatever the reason for their brain-like appearance! And yes, I am always happy to learn more walnut and other random facts.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't mean to be the walnut police, but thought this is one of the few audiences that may appreciate it and I don't know much about brains, but do know a couple things about walnuts.  Really, it likely still does have to do with surface area (maybe to support respiration or water uptake).

Or, the other theory that is not in vogue these days is the doctrine of signatures, which suggests God made it look like a brain as a clue for us to know it is good for our brains.  Kind of surprised chat gtp didn't uncover this one as walnut is one of the common examples used.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2014/07/fantastically-wrong-doctrine-of-signatures/amp

I was worried when you said "walnut police" you were about to tell me something I didn't want to know about walnuts like they aren't actually good for you. Relieved I can continue to enjoy my walnuts, whatever the reason for their brain-like appearance! And yes, I am always happy to learn more walnut and other random facts.

I just put in "walnuts and brains" and got this good news:

Walnuts are a type of nut that are often consumed for their rich flavor and health benefits. They are a good source of healthy fats, fiber, and various vitamins and minerals. Some studies suggest that consuming walnuts may improve brain health, as they contain nutrients that are important for brain function such as omega-3 fatty acids and antioxidants. However, more research is needed to fully understand the effects of consuming walnuts on brain health.

[Stockmann]

Caught my first AI essay. It was a trainwreck of random attributions and citations, nand not very on-topic. My student didn't put much work into it.

I don't normally bother reporting plagiarists, but I'll be reporting this one.

How did you discover it was AI and not just regular plagiarism?

The main hint was the structure of the paper, which is cut up into small sections that you can generate with just basic prompts (clearly derived from section titles). The weirdness and garbling of the attributions and the citations, too, are just not at all what you would see from material either generated by a student (I have never seen anything quite like it, and my students often do a very poor job of relating class content) or taken from someone else's work. The huggingface detector confirmed my intuition, and I'll be having a conversation with the student which I expect will seal the deal.

Good to know. My worry isn't really that AI is on the verge of writing good papers, but that it might be able to reproduce a C paper that can get a crummy student a B in the course, but it doesn't seem to be able to do that successfully yet either.

Which is why a B in a course will mean less and less. Like any place where technology can replicate mediocre work, the human workers that survive will be those with real skills; the also-rans will be replaced.

And the students who pull this sort of stuff don't realize that their coast-through-on-minimal-effort mentality is likely to turn them into also-rans.  They're ultimately cheating themselves.

This seems to me to be the most significant part of it - if the student can't do better than an AI, why would anyone hire them instead of using an AI? Much as google translate can do a better job than bad human translators, if you only need mediocre writing you could use an AI instead of hiring a mediocre writer. When I was an undergrad, I had a professor who told us that computers were better at memorization than we were, and cheaper too, so we'd better bring something more to the table if we wanted jobs. I think something similar when I have students who seem unwilling and unable to do much more than plug numbers given to them into formulae given to them - a spreadsheet can do it faster and cheaper.


I've not read through the entire thread, but it seems to me to strengthen the case for relying on f2f, proctored paper exams with no electronics (other than possibly a calculator) allowed. In that sense, ChatGPT isn't that revolutionary as a cheating tool - plagiarism, ghost writers, etc have been around a long time.