@mloxton @DrTCombs My policy last year was if I had to ask it probably had other structural issues that ran afoul of the rubric/standard anyway.

I agree there are no effective counter-ai detectors that don't give egregious false positives.

@thehomespundays
Right, and unless you have horrendous levels of cheating, the number of false positives is going to outnumber the number of true positives.

I think it also just goes in the wrong direction. I would rather see a shift towards handing a student something the AI did, and to ask them to critique, edit, and fact-check it, and then add actual references. To my mind, that advances the craft, rather than trying to ward off the inevitable

@DrTCombs

@mloxton
Our policy is you can use it, but you have to disclose the what, why, and how of said use.

The disclosure is not happening.
@thehomespundays

@DrTCombs
oh ... that's interesting. Do you have any leads on why they don't disclose use?

@thehomespundays

@mloxton @DrTCombs

Students are sea lawyers. They know nothing so well as the rule of what they can get away with and how to protect themselves.

I guess your original question of how to prove your suspicions in the absence of concrete evidence is most pertinent.

Maybe I don't hate my move to staff work after all :)