Well OK for nuanced utilization of such tools. But what about the blatant copying that you refer to at 0:47? Isn't this something that should be detected and penalized?
Respectfully, critical thinking about "wordy text," as you call it, and writing are very complex neurological processes that require skill building over several years. When 1 or more of the steps to the processes are circumvented through AI use, the processes gets derailed and the students' critical thinking and writing development become stunted.
I agree that there aren’t necessarily any original thoughts. However, I think it doesn’t really matter if the general public has seen a lot of really negative news stories about ai and thinks any use of ai is plagiarism no matter what.
Your music example does not take into account public domain, such as Canon in D, and actual copyrighted material such as Under Pressure. This is the same difference as common knowledge and uncommon knowledge; on must be cited the other does not. Thus, you misused the music parallel.
Well OK for nuanced utilization of such tools. But what about the blatant copying that you refer to at 0:47? Isn't this something that should be detected and penalized?
Absolutely! Passing off someones whole work as your own will never be ok and I think assessment design can be used to make sure this doesn't happen.
Very well said. I totally agree with your thoughts.
Lovely to hear! Thanks for watching :)
Respectfully, critical thinking about "wordy text," as you call it, and writing are very complex neurological processes that require skill building over several years. When 1 or more of the steps to the processes are circumvented through AI use, the processes gets derailed and the students' critical thinking and writing development become stunted.
I agree that there aren’t necessarily any original thoughts. However, I think it doesn’t really matter if the general public has seen a lot of really negative news stories about ai and thinks any use of ai is plagiarism no matter what.
True, its about how we perceive it for sure!
@@biancaraby yeah. It’s the court of public opinion. Personally I’m really curious to see where technology goes, so I’m all in on it
Your music example does not take into account public domain, such as Canon in D, and actual copyrighted material such as Under Pressure. This is the same difference as common knowledge and uncommon knowledge; on must be cited the other does not. Thus, you misused the music parallel.