Social Items

TPQ
Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ It is nearly thirty years since I sat my BA in politics, more years than I care to remember.

In those days what today we take for granted, computers etc were just becoming the norm. it was still possible and acceptable to complete assignments on a basic typewriter and, under certain circumstances, even hand written essays would be accepted providing they were legible. The new technology which has come in has been a great service without undermining the integrity of the degree or the credibility of the student showing an ability in reading the discipline. The object was, and I understand still is, the student shows an ability to degree standard of being able to read, absorb and logically conclude any question in their required field. For example, in my first year my assignment - coursework – was the principles of the ‘Vienna Settlement 1815’. Much reading as well as attending lectures was needed. 

Attending lectures was important and recording equipment was not allowed, notes had to be taken thus proving an ability to take note of what has been said by the lecturer and absorb what has been said. Of course, students missed lectures but providing this was an occasional occurrence as reading in the library could compensate. This also showed an ability to study the subject and come to a logical conclusion. Books such as A Dictionary of Politics were discouraged because the interpretation in such a book was only one variant. These books could be used as a backup but should not be used as a primary source, and never include such books in a bibliography.

The computers were a huge help, being able to save work and spell check were gifts without undermining the basic principles of university education. Plagiarism was then, as now I understand, a disciplinary offence which could have led to expulsion. Assignments should, rightly so, be the students own work and conclusion to the question set by the educational establishment including the lecturers and chosen from a list of possible questions by the student. It was not a requirement to agree with the lecturer when concluding an answer to a question. For example, one question was ‘which class made the most gains during the 19th century?’ and I answered, taking a line totally different to that of the lecturer and taking into account all the factory acts of the 19th century, the working-class made the most gains. This answer had to be explained and sources of information given. The question had to be looked at through objective eyes and not be mistaken with a slightly different question; ‘which class made most “political” gains in the 19th century? The two are different though related and could AI differentiate between the two? Even if such tools could differentiate, how could a student list their sources? Taking this approach is not a problem, more a challenge, but if a student takes this avenue, they must be able to substantiate their answer, proof of research, reading etc. Today we have such things as Google which will give an answer to a question, though not necessarily the correct one. So, my advice is to use Google only for such minor details as dates and years to save trawling through pages and pages of literature. Google has its uses but never, never become dependent on it, a disaster waiting to happen.

Today, a debate is raging as to how far, if at all, Artificial Intelligence should be allowed in universities and colleges. Many universities, including Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge), Manchester, Bristol and many others have banned the use of AI. To use AI for assignments or essays could constitute plagiarism and serious consequences for the student could follow. At very best it is ‘academic dishonesty’ and the student, if they do use AI and get away with it cannot in all honesty look themselves in the mirror and claim to have reached the required standard for their degree. Much of such a degree would have been done by a machine, admittedly very advanced ones like ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) but nevertheless still producing artificially induced coursework! 

Trinity College, Dublin, has recently issued a warning to all students, Postgraduate and Undergraduate, against the use of AI. According to Trinity News:

college have warned students against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in assessments, highlighting that their use constitutes a breach of academic integrity, with “serious consequences for your academic progress”. The email stressed the importance of students maintaining academic integrity.

I sat my masters at Trinity and know their marking is very stringent. Artificial Intelligence will also reduce the ability of the student’s mind to be objective and agile. It will relegate the student from being one of the top twenty-percent to just another academic of sorts!

For myself, as a postgraduate, I think AI should be banned out of hand. Any coursework done on one of these machines totally undermines the degree a student may have got by cheating. The integrity of the entire discipline will be undermined. It totally undermines the credibility of the student and the value of the degree. Cheating is exactly what it is, it is not a degree and should never be accepted as one. How can a student claim to have researched, studied and concluded a question if a machine has done it for them? Should a student take this avenue it will be the AI tool which answers the question posed and writes the assignment. Much easier, I admit, but fraudulent.

I took great pleasure in researching and learning about the discipline I had chosen, politics (philosophy in my masters), and my only massive mistake was, because I was on for a first during my second year I went on the piss. This proved almost fatal and if the lecturer had not taken me in hand, under her wing so to speak, it would no doubt have been the end for me. As it turned out I pulled myself together and got back on track. I managed this without any Artificial Intelligence and having left what passed for secondary education with precisely nothing, unless a couple of GCEs count for anything, and having spent most of my life running round the various football terraces of England and Europe with Man Utd I, for once, had achieved something apart from a criminal record. 

My advice to any student if, in future, AI does become available and accepted in universities (hopefully never), and it probably one day will, don’t use it. It undermines your work, you lose credibility and even if the student does not tell anybody they have cheated by having their assignments written by ChatGPT they themselves will know the truth, that they have cheated and lied their way to a degree. The only exception I can think of is if a student is taking a degree on the discipline of Artificial Intelligence, then, of course a knowledge of how to use the equipment must be shown. Otherwise, leave alone, you’ll feel much better for it, after all, what is the use of being unable to analyse and conclude a simple question but being able to talk to a machine?

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Should AI Be Allowed In Universities?

Caoimhin O’Muraile ☭ It is nearly thirty years since I sat my BA in politics, more years than I care to remember.

In those days what today we take for granted, computers etc were just becoming the norm. it was still possible and acceptable to complete assignments on a basic typewriter and, under certain circumstances, even hand written essays would be accepted providing they were legible. The new technology which has come in has been a great service without undermining the integrity of the degree or the credibility of the student showing an ability in reading the discipline. The object was, and I understand still is, the student shows an ability to degree standard of being able to read, absorb and logically conclude any question in their required field. For example, in my first year my assignment - coursework – was the principles of the ‘Vienna Settlement 1815’. Much reading as well as attending lectures was needed. 

Attending lectures was important and recording equipment was not allowed, notes had to be taken thus proving an ability to take note of what has been said by the lecturer and absorb what has been said. Of course, students missed lectures but providing this was an occasional occurrence as reading in the library could compensate. This also showed an ability to study the subject and come to a logical conclusion. Books such as A Dictionary of Politics were discouraged because the interpretation in such a book was only one variant. These books could be used as a backup but should not be used as a primary source, and never include such books in a bibliography.

The computers were a huge help, being able to save work and spell check were gifts without undermining the basic principles of university education. Plagiarism was then, as now I understand, a disciplinary offence which could have led to expulsion. Assignments should, rightly so, be the students own work and conclusion to the question set by the educational establishment including the lecturers and chosen from a list of possible questions by the student. It was not a requirement to agree with the lecturer when concluding an answer to a question. For example, one question was ‘which class made the most gains during the 19th century?’ and I answered, taking a line totally different to that of the lecturer and taking into account all the factory acts of the 19th century, the working-class made the most gains. This answer had to be explained and sources of information given. The question had to be looked at through objective eyes and not be mistaken with a slightly different question; ‘which class made most “political” gains in the 19th century? The two are different though related and could AI differentiate between the two? Even if such tools could differentiate, how could a student list their sources? Taking this approach is not a problem, more a challenge, but if a student takes this avenue, they must be able to substantiate their answer, proof of research, reading etc. Today we have such things as Google which will give an answer to a question, though not necessarily the correct one. So, my advice is to use Google only for such minor details as dates and years to save trawling through pages and pages of literature. Google has its uses but never, never become dependent on it, a disaster waiting to happen.

Today, a debate is raging as to how far, if at all, Artificial Intelligence should be allowed in universities and colleges. Many universities, including Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge), Manchester, Bristol and many others have banned the use of AI. To use AI for assignments or essays could constitute plagiarism and serious consequences for the student could follow. At very best it is ‘academic dishonesty’ and the student, if they do use AI and get away with it cannot in all honesty look themselves in the mirror and claim to have reached the required standard for their degree. Much of such a degree would have been done by a machine, admittedly very advanced ones like ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) but nevertheless still producing artificially induced coursework! 

Trinity College, Dublin, has recently issued a warning to all students, Postgraduate and Undergraduate, against the use of AI. According to Trinity News:

college have warned students against the use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in assessments, highlighting that their use constitutes a breach of academic integrity, with “serious consequences for your academic progress”. The email stressed the importance of students maintaining academic integrity.

I sat my masters at Trinity and know their marking is very stringent. Artificial Intelligence will also reduce the ability of the student’s mind to be objective and agile. It will relegate the student from being one of the top twenty-percent to just another academic of sorts!

For myself, as a postgraduate, I think AI should be banned out of hand. Any coursework done on one of these machines totally undermines the degree a student may have got by cheating. The integrity of the entire discipline will be undermined. It totally undermines the credibility of the student and the value of the degree. Cheating is exactly what it is, it is not a degree and should never be accepted as one. How can a student claim to have researched, studied and concluded a question if a machine has done it for them? Should a student take this avenue it will be the AI tool which answers the question posed and writes the assignment. Much easier, I admit, but fraudulent.

I took great pleasure in researching and learning about the discipline I had chosen, politics (philosophy in my masters), and my only massive mistake was, because I was on for a first during my second year I went on the piss. This proved almost fatal and if the lecturer had not taken me in hand, under her wing so to speak, it would no doubt have been the end for me. As it turned out I pulled myself together and got back on track. I managed this without any Artificial Intelligence and having left what passed for secondary education with precisely nothing, unless a couple of GCEs count for anything, and having spent most of my life running round the various football terraces of England and Europe with Man Utd I, for once, had achieved something apart from a criminal record. 

My advice to any student if, in future, AI does become available and accepted in universities (hopefully never), and it probably one day will, don’t use it. It undermines your work, you lose credibility and even if the student does not tell anybody they have cheated by having their assignments written by ChatGPT they themselves will know the truth, that they have cheated and lied their way to a degree. The only exception I can think of is if a student is taking a degree on the discipline of Artificial Intelligence, then, of course a knowledge of how to use the equipment must be shown. Otherwise, leave alone, you’ll feel much better for it, after all, what is the use of being unable to analyse and conclude a simple question but being able to talk to a machine?

Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist.

Artificial Intelligence Caoimhin O’Muraile

No comments

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)