comment: >
  
  How are watermarks ever going to work in text?
  I think it's actually the best way to go but it requires overhauling pretty much of all our software in existence in a really significant way.
  Images and videos are much less of a problem to watermark I think, but at the end of the day, someone can just type out something ChatGPT has produced. Or not even type out, just use an image to text program.
  I worry that for text, detection is an intractable problem. This has serious negative implications but I don't know what we do about it.
  If the text watermarking isn't digital but is based on how it reads/sentence structure/vocabulary etc, it'll be an arm's race between cheaters and detectors, with loads of false positives.
context: /u/boottrax (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
  All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
  Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
  ^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >
  
  A more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.
  The vast majority of "homework" is in place only to verify that a student completed the reading/practiced learned materials.
  Fundamentally, AI systems such as ChatGPT are going to be integrated into modern productivity, adjusting the education system to preclude students from learning how best to utilize them in a formalized setting wouldn't be an effective way to set them up for the future. >
  
  
  A more effective method would simply be to adjust the educational apparatus to focus less on completing what amounts to busy work assignments and focus more thoroughly on understanding of the material.
  
  How is a teacher supposed to measure someone's understanding of the material if there's no writing, no essays, no assignments? >
  
  I took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material. >
  
  
  I took some classes in college where the exam was a 1 on 1 conversation about the material with the professor. It really separated the people who were just good at busy work from people who understood the material.
  
  So anything but a one-on-one oral exam is busywork? Is that your contention?
  People don't need to acquire the skills to write comprehensibly? To be able to summarize or relate information in any way but a conversation? People don't need to be able to relate specifics? >
  
  As I said it separated people “who were just good at busy work”. The oral exams were only part of the work we did, and there were essays and research papers. But writing a paper on a super well feed topic can be done without having a very good grasp of the material particularly when there’s a ton published about the topic already. Having to answer probing questions in the spot is a lot harder. >
  
  So, again, everything but the oral exam your professor gave is busy work? >
  
  What's with this false dilemma?
  A lot of stuff that is currently assigned is busy work. An oral exam is not.
  That doesn't mean everything but the oral exam is busy work, just that it's a solid alternative, and one of many. A traditional piece of homework can be done well to evaluate understanding, but is not always done well. An oral exam, overall, is more likely to yield a better analysis of a student's understanding, though is of course not without its own flaws (especially, that a shy student and a non-understanding student can be hard to tell apart). >
  
  
  What's with this false dilemma?
  A lot of stuff that is currently assigned is busy work. An oral exam is not.
  That doesn't mean everything but the oral exam is busy work, just that it's a solid alternative, and one of many. A traditional piece of homework can be done well to evaluate understanding, but is not always done well. An oral exam, overall, is more likely to yield a better analysis of a student's understanding, though is of course not without its own flaws (especially, that a shy student and a non-understanding student can be hard to tell apart).
  
  There's no false dilemma. I've asked you what you consider not busy work and your only answer is your professor had an oral exam.
  So I asked if that is the only thing you don't consider busy work. You've given no other examples of anything you don't think is busy work. >
  
  Like I said, traditional homework can be done well. And if done well, it is not busy work. >
  
  
  Like I said, traditional homework can be done well. And if done well, it is not busy work.
  
  That's on the student, not the teacher, class,, etc. If a student doesn't care, they don't care. >
  
  Who would remain on site for the additional time that students would remain to do at school homework? Would you have a second shift of teachers or require teachers to work far more hours?
  Would not an easier method be to eliminate homework entirely? There are some studies that show homework doesn't significantly improve student learning. >
  
  I will not argue the efficacy of homework.  That was not part of the CMV.
  I assume students will need to do independent research, homework, coding projects, and so on as they have always done.
  Regarding who would supervise this.  Again that would have to be a school official.  Perhaps it could also be a part-time job offered to a senior student after school.  
  These labs I don’t believe would be open 24/7.  But they could be used to vouch for students time spent doing homework to begin with as a measure teachers could use. >
  
  
  I will not argue the efficacy of homework. That was not part of the CMV.
  
  That's not how CMV works. The response of "all homework is dumb" is a perfectly valid response to your claims that the way homework is done needs to change. You can't exclude logical arguments because you don't like them. >
  
  Exams shouldn't be impacted. These should be done without the aid of a computer already. I do agree, though, that this should be maintained.
  Perhaps the best way to overcome the impact of ChatGPT would be to utilize a more flipped-classroom style approach. In a flipped classroom, you generally learn much of the content at home, and engage with the material in class. I had almost none of this in high school (graduated in 2015), but a handful of these styles of classes in college.
  A teacher could assign content that should be covered at home, and possibly institute relatively low complexity homework assignments as an attempt to make sure the students are actually addressing the material, and it wouldn't matter that much if they use something like ChatGPT or not in this setting. Then, class would be spent engaging in things like graded discussions or debates or whatever else, perhaps with an opportunity to try to clear up any confusion. Even something as simple as graded worksheets could be implemented. If you wanted to assign an essay to test understanding and force someone to try to think critically, you could do it in class now and guarantee that they are doing their own work.
  This would be more critical in subjects that require some sort of opinion-based analysis like history or English. Something like math wouldn't need to change that much, especially since the resources available to cheat in math have existed long before ChatGPT went online. This probably applies to most STEM subjects, too. There are ways to create assignments that do a better job of engaging students without necessitating ChatGPT.
  Your plan reflects the right idea but taken to a completely outrageous extreme, and would disrupt any sort of extracurricular activity available to students. >
  
  If that was the method my school used when I was a student I can 100% guarantee I'd fail. A piece of class related information just won't enter my brain unless a teacher is verbally saying it to me. No matter how much I read, unless I can listen and ask questions I'm not going to get it. And it's not going to help when I get to school and the teacher assumes I know the subject and starts a graded discussion about it... when I just have no clue. How does your system treat students like me? >
  
  Generally the discussion is graded on participation, not knowledge. If you don't know shit but you're asking a ton of questions, you'd get a good grade. It also helps if you happen to have friends who can tutor you, the school offers free tutoring, or your teacher has hours before or after school to ask questions. >
  
  That's even worse for shy/socially anxious students who are not comfortable speaking up. >
  
  With guided discussion the teacher should be looking out for students who aren't participating and specifically ask them questions. >
  
  The creators of chat GPT and I'm fairly certain other  writing AI are in the process of implementing invisible "watermarks" in the writing.
  And you may think "Oh they say they're doing that for things like academic honesty but they'll just put in a perfunctory, easily circumventable effort." But actually it's incredibly important to the development of the chat bots themselves that their work be easily recognized. You see it trains by pulling from a massive array of other writing. As these bots gain popularity, more of the writing online available to be pulled will be AI generated. If bots are trained on bot output, you get a feedback loop which gets in the way of their goals of making better output.
  It's like if the image generators were trained on their own output, you'd bake in the bad hands instead of eventually transcend them. They want and need to avoid the same thing with writing.
  So in the era of AI writing, AI will be at least as easy to spot as plagiarism is NOW with things like Turnitin. Teachers won't need to rework their whole pedagogy and abandon work at home, which is crucial. Remember that these AI systems are expensive as hell and massively complex. At least for the next decade the ones powerful enough to write a school essay well are owned by companies who want their output to be identifiable and who want their reputation as a service to be positive.