Artificial intelligence detection software has the potential to hurt Citrus students’ academic reputation.
The software has been an issue for students who are doing good work and being accused of using AI.
With the increasing growth of the technology, teachers are using the software to make sure students do not use AI where it is not permitted.
Professors should implement other systems, such as higher communication with students, that could help decrease the need for AI detection software.
AI detection software analyzes patterns and complexity. Sometimes, a student’s original writing fits patterns that the software is looking for.
The website Autogpt said AI detection software uses Natural Language Processing to analyze the diction students use in their work.
NLP is using algorithms and patterns to understand human language. It analyzes grammar and syntax along with patterns to try to detect the use of AI.
Essentially, AI is being used to look for AI. Isn’t that convenient?
Autogpt also said that AI detection has a history of both false positives and false negatives. The website said that this is primarily an issue when the text uses sophisticated language.
Well-written language can be flagged as AI, which is unfair to students. This can lead to students being falsely accused and therefore receiving unfair punishments.
Rolling Stone published an article about a woman who was falsely accused of using AI.
Louse Strivers, a student at University of California, Davis, told Rolling Stone she had a portion of her assignment falsely flagged for being AI-written by Turnitin, which is an AI detection software program that is commonly used by academic institutions, including Citrus College.
The article said Strivers was in her senior year at UC Davis with aspirations of getting into a law school.
She was put under investigation by the university’s office of student support and judicial affairs in the midst of midterm season.
The investigation went on for over two weeks. In the time that she could have spent studying and completing assignments, Strivers was instead undergoing the process of trying to prove her academic honesty.
Strivers told Rolling Stone the event caused her grades to slip. Strivers said the process of proving her innocence felt like “extra-stressful homework.”
In the end, Strivers proved her innocence. However, that does not mean she got to wipe her hands clean of the situation.
Strivers said that she would have to self-report the allegation of cheating to law schools in the application processes.
Similar stories to Strivers’ are all too common.
A Tiktok influencer, known as Aisha, posted a video where she said that the procedure of using AI to detect the use of AI is “the stupidest cycle that’s happening in college right now.”
Aisha rants in the video about how quotes from cited sources could be flagged for using AI.
“It’s a constant cycle where the student always loses,” Aisha said.
That sentiment is echoed in over 3,000 comments on the video. The overwhelming majority of commenters shared similar experiences of their work being falsely flagged for AI.
One of the top comments from user @igotapregunta reads, “Turnitin is my enemy.”
This comment has over 92,000 likes.
The inaccuracies of AI-detection software are not only being acknowledged in online spaces. Some universities, like Vanderbilt University, are taking a stance.
In 2023, Vanderbilt University took its AI detection off turnitin.com.
“After several months of using and testing this tool, meeting with Turnitin and other AI leaders, and talking to other universities who also have access, Vanderbilt has decided to disable Turnitin’s AI detection tool for the foreseeable future,” Vanderbilt said on its website.
The statement also says that Turnitin gives no explanation as to how they know the writing is AI and they “do not believe that AI detection software is an effective tool that should be used.”
Vanderbilt said it believed the risk outweighs the benefits of this technology.
However, all detections by this software are not immediately false positives. Some students do intend to use AI to fabricate assignments and pass them off as their own.
AI is a tool that is readily available and capable of doing students work and the technology sometimes catches it.
Though the inconsistency of the technology is why its use should not be put above the threats.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology is also an institution that does not believe AI detectors are beneficial or work.
MIT Management STS Teaching and Learning Technologies said that the software used is flawed.
Citing two academic studies, MIT’s release said, “It has high error rates and can lead instructors to falsely accuse students of misconduct.”
The article gives suggestions of ways to to encourage academic honesty without having to monitor and restrict AI usage in student work. The overall theme of these ways is open dialogue and communication with students.
To avoid mishaps of AI detection in the future, Citrus should put a focus on intrinsic motivation and professor transparency.
MIT is already promoting this idea.
This can be done by professors giving larger amounts of feedback on assignments before a final grade is given.
This way, students will feel more confident in the work they submit and professors can help students along the way.
This could decrease the likelihood that students would use AI and take away the professors’ need for detection software.
AI detection software is faulty and not fully trustworthy. Without needing to use it, fewer mistakes can be made by falsely accusing students.
Academic disciplinary action such as suspension or expulsion is a highly unfavorable outcome that Citrus students may come to expect if the technology is continued to be used on campus.
It causes stress and takes time and energy away from a student’s focus.
Academic institutions like Citrus College have the opportunity to combat the negative consequences of using AI detection software.
Time can be saved, stress can be minimized and healthier work environments can flourish when false positives no longer pose a threat to students.
