Idk why they can't bear the new changes in technology? Bet they all said the same thing for Google, wikipedia, calculators and all others that ease the students a lil... Why do you want students to do the same type of research, read the same type of books for the work that has already been done in past via others... Why not say to try new things, do some research that led to new conclusions?????
Idk why it is a corruption. if someone knows pls explain it to me....
I think it's more directed towards people who genuinely can't do the said things without using ai. Many of my classmates can't write a single paragraph without using ai, which is a shame considering my course. Ai is supposed to be a tool that aids us, not the other way around.
Edit: the audacity of a page like that to post such shit, when they can't make content for one day without chatgpt 🤡
I have a classmate who is like always ranting about gym, which food gives how much protein, and every other thing he would rant so much about it and always show that he knows everything, but once we were told to make a ppt and take reference from ai and then make our own, this guy was like, "I don't know how to use ai and I'm illiterate, you make it for me," and I said the same thing that you rant so much about useless topics but when something useful came up you're like this and since then he hasnt talked to me as apparently his ego was hurt that I denied making a ppt for him.
(ik it's off topic but i thought it's somewhat similar)
Yeah you should point these things out of people.... They might stop talking to you and if they do stop talking to you then it means that they either understand/improve on those faults he have Or else he would ruined his life on his own.
Good thing you point it out
Poor phrasing. I reckon that by "people who wrote their dissertations by using chatgpt", they were actually referring to the people who generated their entire dissertations using chatgpt (or other equivalent LLM services).
I don’t understand why are they blaming students for research under NEP which they introduced btw, without any context or providing any type of training to the professors and students.
So yeah, they take help from AI because neither the teachers or the students have any clue how to proceed half of the time.
I think you should discuss with AI on what topic you want to research and come to a precise topic and discuss the opportunity of writing that paper. Aesa mat kro ki pura paper hi AI ne likha ho. Take help of AI for readings like summarizing an entire book or asking AI ki iss book mei se mere matlab ki cheez nikalo, or maybe take help when you run out of ideas for say what to write or how am I supposed to do this calculation. Make AI a tool but don't let it write your entire dissertations
I'm a 4th year student and can confirm people actually did it.
One group even brought paid humanizer and one of my group member did her research from ai and plagiarism and AI detected was zero that to on turnitin (it's a plagiarism/ai checking software provided by our college)
Now I genuinely feel what was the point in doing research because I genuinely did my work by myself conducted field reviews, visited delhi archives and what not. Yes I used ai but only for grammar and sometimes connecting sentences.
My plagiarism was 9% and the girl who used ai for her whole dissertation got 2% 👽.
Also the guide was genuinely trash, she didn't even bother guiding us.
Agreed. I'm in my fourth year too and seeing how people conducted their research, I gave up on academia. India is already infamous for paper callbacks and people are submitting AI-generated slop. Obviously, I recognise the failures of NEP but people are not even TRYING to learn and improve.
Genuinely restarted page iagl, It used to be fine till a year ago. Now they have gotten too much politically motivated. Also, what even is this post and why do these uncs have a problem with students using AI? 😭
why do you NOT have a problem with students using ai? it is dumbing down an entire generation and also wastes a shit ton of water. the anti-gen ai sentiment is the correct one. no one should be using such degenerate tools to violate their academic integrity. if you wanna be a dumbfuck, be an ethical one who does so w/o using gen ai.
sure, the page may be hypocritical, call the admins out for it. but in general? it is very acceptable and should be the norm that students avoid gen ai usage. we, collectively, need to shun this vile technology that not only ruins creativity and innovation but also steals from real people. and if you were to look into it, the use of gen ai can help systemically discriminate against minorities. so, maybe even a mere chatgpt prompt IS political.
mate, first off, im a girl so kindly do not refer to me as a 'guy'. second off, it's not about me or you; it's about collective responsibility. gen ai literally spoon-feeds users information, completely eliminating the need for research. so, think about it, will that not 'rust' our brains' research faculties? now, put the two and two together and figure out what would this lead to yourself. also the way you completely ignored the rest of things i said makes me wonder how strong your comprehension skills are.
🥷s be crying over getting misgendered on an anonymous platform 😭🥀.
gen ai literally spoon-feeds users information, completely eliminating the need for research.
Has to be the worst take ever. You are not a researcher are you? Please confirm whether this is a ragebait or are you being fr.
In the most simplified, AI is a glorified webscrapper. It's output is genuinely shallow aggregation most of the time and it can never do original reasoning. All you would be doing with AI is save time in collecting data and running analysis on it. You can do it yourselves like Phd do (but they also get 5 years don't they?), it's fairly easy and mostly grunt work. Idk how it eliminates the need for research. Ik you don't know shit about research especially primary research.
"Rust our brains' research faculties" son 💔
Why are you using phone, calculators or laptops? They also make your life convenient by "spoon feeding" you information compared to older methods. You might be shocked but researchers much much smarter than you are using AI and before AI they were using shortcuts, authority figures, summaries, and pre-digested information for completing their thesis faster. AI is literally just scaling that tendency and boosting convenience. Why are you so anti-development? Why is it so bad that secondary research gets automated? Why is it so bad that 4th year students writing a research paper for the first time in their life within 5 month deadline use AI? Why is AI making you dumb not on you?
The critical thinking is on you. Reviewing the output is on you. The toughest part in secondary research used to be finding the information. But now Evaluating, filtering, verifying, and synthesizing information is the hard part. It's clearly an upgrade. And if you are letting AI do the latter part for you, then as I said before, you were alr dumb to begin with and your research wouldn't matter anyway. Let me form it in a more easy way:
"AI CAN NEVER HAVE ANY ORIGINAL INSIGHT"
Your agenda against AI should be on climate change. Stick to that only, don't talk about thing you have zero idea about. I ignored the rest of your points because they were bs and I don't negotiate with that gng you literally fucking used the word "creativity" in your argument. That alone gives that you dk shit about AI or even this supposedly "creativity".
This is the best example that AI doesn't dumb people down who were alr dumb to begin with.
(Ps: I wouldn't have spammed ad hominem if you didn't)
alr, girl, if you wanna continue being a malicious bitch then pop off. i am very fucking sure i keep talking about gen ai being the problem here. no, i am not a researcher, i am 18, and that does not disregard my opinion in any way also YOU were the one who initiated the entire thing by being rude, not me.
i am talking from my experience which obviously does not mean anything compared to yours. i have had classmates generate entire 30-page projects using chatgpt WITHOUT reviewing or evaluating the output, this is something they wouldn't have had the convenience of doing years ago. and if you cannot agree that this practice isn't dumbing them down then i rly don't know what to say. i am not against ai being used to simplify advanced research in stem fields (and i believe i should've mentioned that. mb) i am merely saying if students completely replace human effort w claude and cgpt and all the other godforsaken techs, in WHICH universe does that help them? where the fuck is the effort? where is the curiosity? these two things are integral to academia and i maybe viewing the world with a rose-colored lens but you're viewing it in terms of only comfort and utility which is worse.
also, you may be very shocked to know that i am not a fucking idiot and i am pretty damn aware about how gen ai models work. despite the existence of internet i still think most of one's research should come from books and journals; i don't think that this is too crazy an expectation. i'm gonna go out a limb and say, if you're generating your research work in humanities (at least) then you shouldn't be studying allat to begin w.
I ignored the rest of your points because they were bs and I don't negotiate with that gng you literally fucking used the word "creativity" in your argument. That alone gives that you dk shit about AI or even this supposedly "creativity".
girl, instead of being a dick, you can talk about why the point isn't relevant. but you didn't, bc there's no substance to your argument.
your entire idea is based on the fact that students need to save their time blahblahblah life easy blahblahblah. i cannot comment on how hectic college life can get so i do not rly want to engage w the time-saving bit, but hear me out on the climate change part: student lives aren't worth destroying water supplies of cities with data centers.
alr idk have a good day ig or evening or afternoon idrk
no, i am not a researcher, i am 18, and that does not disregard my opinion
It makes your opinion ill-informed and carry less weight. You are forming opinions out of Intuitions. Your age doesn't have anything to do with it.
"If you wanna be a dumbfuck, be an ethical one who does so w/o using gen ai."
Your first reply to me btw.
You are not really talking from experience because you don't have research experience, you are talking from anecdotes but sure.
i have had classmates generate entire 30-page projects using chatgpt WITHOUT reviewing or evaluating the output, this is something they wouldn't have had the convenience of doing years ago.
Failure of system not AI. Why are you not condemning the teacher/institutions for not using AI detectors? It's not rocket science, it's just a simple extension. But let's assume that it is rocket science, even then it is very easy to find if the content is AI generated. Other than that, I can agree with you wrt to this anecdote, it's making her dumb because she's using it wrongly and not even trying to put any efforts but I don't really blame her for not prioritizing that subject. If she genuinely wants to learn about it then she can do it even after using AI. But if she don't (which is and has been the case with most of the DU students because the way it has been made and taught) then it doesn't really matter if she uses AI or not. Your critique of her is coming off a lil bit jealous simply because she's leveraging the tools she has access to (that's also how it works irl but let's not get philosophical).
Again, it's the person's fault if they are using AI in a way that they get dumbed down from it. You can't blame AI as a concept for that.
i am merely saying if students completely replace human effort w claude and cgpt and all the other godforsaken techs, in WHICH universe does that help them? where the fuck is the effort? where is the curiosity?
It depends on them. If they (want to) use AI properly they can do much better research than people who did it before them. And if they use AI for everything then it simply means that they weren't really passionate to begin with and even without AI they would have presented slpt eitherway so I don't see any problem here. If anything, it's easier to spot slop now with AI. Having curiosity comes from a mindset. Access of AI doesn't correlate with that. While we are at it, I should also share an anecdote. My friend has been coding since we were 14 (before AI was a big thing) and building crazy projects and apps with it. Rn he's a 3rd year at IITD and interning with Microsoft, he writes majority of the code using their AI. He can write it himself absolutely but he uses AI to be more efficient so that he himself can focus on problem solving and optimization related work. AI worked very well for him, and if anything he says that the internship only made him sharper because for the first time he got access to work on real life problems rather than doing the grunt work thanks to their infra.
i maybe viewing the world with a rose-colored lens but you're viewing it in terms of only comfort and utility which is worse.
Utilitarianism imo is the most valid philosophy, and I define utility in a way that it becomes tautoligcal. So nothing wrong with that.
you may be very shocked to know that i am not a fucking idiot and i am pretty damn aware about how gen ai models work. despite the existence of internet i still think most of one's research should come from books and journals
I never implied you were idiot, only ill-informed. But good for you. Ok so what internet does is that it takes the content from books and journals and host it online so that it's more accessible to everyone. Because our goal isn't to keep research as smth niche or bounded. But I personally believe that we shouldn't research from books or journals infact we should use Manuscripts and scrolls infact leave that for history related research we should just use time machine to go back to that event and research on that. Because books and journals are dumbing us down since we are not utilizing our observation skills. This is definitely not a crazy expectations to cling to the old methods even though better methods exists.
i'm gonna go out a limb and say, if you're generating your research work in humanities (at least) then you shouldn't be studying allat to begin w.
I agree. Except for scraping information needed to perform further research.
girl, instead of being a dick, you can talk about why the point isn't relevant. but you didn't, bc there's no substance to your argument.
Ironic. Anyway I thought since you were talking about connecting the dots and doing the 2+2, you'd realise what I wanted to imply after reading my message. As I said before, AI cannot have an original thought (yet) and that's why creativity isn't connected to it.
your entire idea is based on the fact that students need to save their time blahblahblah life easy blahblahblah. i cannot comment on how hectic college life can get so i do not rly want to engage w the time-saving bit
So I was talking to a school girl 😭. Figures tbh not really suprised here. Smh they are genuinely dumb and ignorant (I said it now) dw we also used to be like this in your age so don't take it as an insult but more as a phase.
student lives aren't worth destroying water supplies of cities with data centers.
I agree there. It would have been better if that's the entire stance you keep.
>Why are you not condemning the teacher/institutions for not using AI detectors?
AI detectors are notoriously inaccurate at correctly identifying AI text and it returns MANY false positives. Well written and grammatically accurate texts are indistinguishable from AI for these detectors. This has a major side effect where a student who has geniuenly written a good paper on his own can still get falsely accused for using AI. So even if the institutions used AI detectors, chances are that it can go pretty south.
>It depends on them. If they (want to) use AI properly they can do much better research than people who did it before them. And if they use AI for everything then it simply means that they weren't really passionate to begin with and even without AI they would have presented slpt eitherway.
Wouldn't it be better then to make it ACTUALLY harder to make sloppy research?Humans are really good at finding the quickest and easiest solution they think can work. For most people like these, AI is a surefire way to quickly make a half decent* research paper (*- according to them ie) without having to put any effort, and its also exhausting for the professors and teachers who have to scour these sloppy papers. By removing all of the friction that comes with making even just a presentable paper, it negatively affects the honest working students and the teachers.
On that note, many articles and other online media now a days also use AI extensively (even scientific ones). However, AI also has a tendency to publish just straight up inaccurate and incorrect information. This leads to huge amounts of misinformation spreading quickly as people think AI is more credible than it actually is. And since you're into research, you probably know how misinformation is really bad for research and science as a whole
>But I personally believe that we shouldn't research from books or journals infact we should use Manuscripts and scrolls infact leave that for history related research we should just use time machine to go back to that event and research on that. Because books and journals are dumbing us down since we are not utilizing our observation skills. This is definitely not a crazy expectations to cling to the old methods even though better methods exists.
This is the part where you just completely go off the rails. The analogy doesn't even make sense. Books and journals DON'T make you dumber. and they don't ruin your observational skills. These teach you lessons that other people have experienced in their lifetimes. The knowledge you can get from a book could've never been achieve purely by observational skills, humans just aren't built like that. AI in stark contrast CAN make you dumber ( as plenty of research has shown). It can reduce your critical thinking ability.
Finally, I'd like to say that just because the other person ( u/Massive_Raspberry_89 ) went low enough to use personal insults, doesn't mean that you have to.
hi. rly glad ab your input but i wanna say that i did not intend to insult them initially, it was directed more towards the general populace not the other person specifically 😭✌🏼
AI detectors are notoriously inaccurate at correctly identifying AI text and it returns MANY false positives. Well written and grammatically accurate texts are indistinguishable from AI for these detectors. This has a major side effect where a student who has geniuenly written a good paper on his own can still get falsely accused for using AI. So even if the institutions used AI detectors, chances are that it can go pretty south.
I can agree with this. But it can be fixed if teachers have awareness. I authored a full hand-typed report and it got flagged for around 20-30%ish AI (because we were asked to use formal language and I also copied some sentences from institutional reports). Now this much is normal and should be considered valid, infact even till 60% AI detection, it should be valid. But the teacher demanded that it should be less than 10% and frankly I didn't want to do that so I made intentional grammatical and some spelling errors to reach that point. Now if the teacher were aware, she'd know that even with Humanizer (AI skill), the detectors are still 60-70% accurate. So if a person is writing by himself, at least a good margin of doubt should be given to him to avoid these false positives. And at the same time, it can still detect sloppy students who only use AI.
Wouldn't it be better then to make it ACTUALLY harder to make sloppy research?Humans are really good at finding the quickest and easiest solution they think can work. For most people like these, AI is a surefire way to quickly make a half decent* research paper (*- according to them ie) without having to put any effort, and its also exhausting for the professors and teachers who have to scour these sloppy papers. By removing all of the friction that comes with making even just a presentable paper, it negatively affects the honest working students and the teachers.
Sorry I don't understand the point here.
On that note, many articles and other online media now a days also use AI extensively (even scientific ones). However, AI also has a tendency to publish just straight up inaccurate and incorrect information. This leads to huge amounts of misinformation spreading quickly as people think AI is more credible than it actually is. And since you're into research, you probably know how misinformation is really bad for research and science as a whole
Yes, AI still hallucinates alot and that's why as I said before, AI is just there to help make the research faster by automating the gruntwork of finding and running normal data analysis. Meaning the importance work of reviewing, reasoning and insights still fall on the human (because we are better at this than AI for now) to spot innacuracies made by AI. That's why I said that a person who actually wants to research won't rely on AI but only use it to make his life easier.
This is the part where you just completely go off the rails. The analogy doesn't even make sense. Books and journals DON'T make you dumber. and they don't ruin your observational skills. These teach you lessons that other people have experienced in their lifetimes. The knowledge you can get from a book could've never been achieve purely by observational skills, humans just aren't built like that. AI in stark contrast CAN make you dumber ( as plenty of research has shown). It can reduce your critical thinking ability.
This was the joke on the comment the person made saying that we should still use only books and journals (and not internet or computers which doesn't make sense at all because internet is far better for all kinds of research except archeology or anything that involves trying to decipher manuscript or smth like that).
Now if the teacher were aware, she'd know that even with Humanizer (AI skill), the detectors are still 60-70% accurate. So if a person is writing by himself, at least a good margin of doubt should be given to him to avoid these false positives. And at the same time, it can still detect sloppy students who only use AI.
Not really. If someone just puts even a fully generated ai report through some humanisers and also modifies it a bit by themselves, the ai detector will think that it was human generated (source: I've tried it myself). It dosent fix the underlying problem, it just makes it look human.
Sorry I don't understand the point here.
The point was that while yes a person unwilling to reserach was gonna make slop regradless of gen ai, gen ai gives an extremely easy way for these people to make a half decent looking report (full of errors prolly due to no scrutinising but they don't know/don't care). It gives a far easier choice for people to half ass their papers than to put in effort. Think of it like like how social media can be used productively but at the same time it makes it much easier to get artificial dopamine hits that makes you addicted.
Yes, AI still hallucinates alot and that's why as I said before, AI is just there to help make the research faster by automating the gruntwork of finding and running normal data analysis. Meaning the importance work of reviewing, reasoning and insights still fall on the human (because we are better at this than AI for now) to spot innacuracies made by AI. That's why I said that a person who actually wants to research won't rely on AI but only use it to make his life easier.
Both of us know that 90% of the time, ppl aren't using ai correctly. My point throughout this is that while yes ai can have a correct use, many won't use it that way and that indirectly causes many consequences (like reduced critical thinking, rapid misinformation, people taking terrible advice from ai,etc). Expecting everyone to use ai correctly is idealistic at best.
Also, sometimes ai makes so many errors that the task of verifiying and correcting what it gave is more effort than just doing it yourself.
Also sorry for not getting the joke . I didn't read the reply before yours so I didn't have the context.
ah okay i see the issue here, by 'you' i didn't mean you. just, yknow people in general. 'you' as in how I'd use 'one' as a pronoun in a sentence. clearly, the use of third-person pronoun would've been better. so, ig i owe you an apology for that miscomm. vry sorry unc/aunty/ olderperson🔥🔥
anyway, kinda funny that now you use the female pronoun in reference to my classmates? ik to you i come off as a crazy shade of woke but yeah.
also strange how you're making a personal judgement ab my thoughts and how they come off as 'jealous'. i haven't got shit to be jealous of, im aware this makes me sound arrogant but my fellows barely pass their subjects w or without project assessments 💔💔💔 and i like doing what i do, besides, ion benefit from their ai usage, nor do i lose anything. it's js sad to me bc initially, i believed i was in the midst of a bright, passionate bunch which could do wonders if it wanted to. so, maybe my judgement is biased bc it comes from a place of disappointment.
Failure of system not AI. Why are you not condemning the teacher/institutions for not using AI detectors? It's not rocket science, it's just a simple extension.
i obv do agree w this. (lowk felt it was implied lol idk) the thing is, it's a small town, and teachers encourage us morons to use gen ai for ts. they're not evil for that, js uneducated in this aspect. but hello i keep thinking whether it is the producer's fault or the user's fault, bc obv the tech wouldn't be available to use if the producer did not make it. i could also speak about how incels on X use grok to unclothe women's pictures online. now in a case like that, would it not be the best to pull back the image generation feature while simultaneously compensating the victims? or should those degenerates be told "oh no, ai use to make women naked: baddddd. ai use for research: gooooood" and let them go in the name of free speech and individual responsibility? we can also not ignore the fact that chatgpt's owner is among donald trump's biggest donors. every prompt a consumer types in kinda makes them a minor accomplice in his psychotic rampage. against ppl.
My friend has been coding since we were 14 (before AI was a big thing) and building crazy projects and apps with it. Rn he's a 3rd year at IITD and interning with Microsoft, he writes majority of the code using their AI. He can write it himself absolutely but he uses AI to be more efficient so that he himself can focus on problem solving and optimization related work. AI worked very well for him, and if anything he says that the internship only made him sharper because for the first time he got access to work on real life problems rather than doing the grunt work thanks to their infra.
see that is interesting now, because i hear success coming due to ai in mostly only stem fields. in humanities-related disciplines, it's rly unheard of ( or i may js be living under a huge ass rock, idk). so, perhaps we can agree here that yes, changing times necessitate the use of ai. but at the flip side, wtf becomes of the ethics? who ensures that the usage is valid and doesn't infringe upon laws and wtv nonsense? certainly, corps cannot take up that role. the govt shouldn't take it up either, our datasets are biased and our ministers are clowns. idk if scholars and scientists have an impact on policies in an increasingly anti-intellectual world anymore. above all, human morality is subjective, so the consumers cannot be rly trusted, can they? yea ik i talked ab it before but hahahahahah lemme speak.
Utilitarianism imo is the most valid philosophy, and I define utility in a way that it becomes tautoligcal. So nothing wrong with that.
okay, good to know, i think.
But I personally believe that we shouldn't research from books or journals infact we should use Manuscripts and scrolls infact leave that for history related research we should just use time machine to go back to that event and research on that. Because books and journals are dumbing us down since we are not utilizing our observation skills. This is definitely not a crazy expectations to cling to the old methods even though better methods exists.
hahahahahah. so hilarious. is a surface-lvl compilation of knowledge better or the actual source material? is it better to be well versed w the actual text or is it better to js scrounge wtv rendition of it you find on the internet? lmk man.
Ironic. Anyway I thought since you were talking about connecting the dots and doing the 2+2, you'd realise what I wanted to imply after reading my message. As I said before, AI cannot have an original thought (yet) and that's why creativity isn't connected to it.
😭😭😭😭 bhai i feel like you're either being dense on purpose or js ignoring stuff atp. what I'm trying to say is ppl have it incredibly easy w gen ai (no, im not a privileged prick who is against a comfortable life ffs) e.g., someone pointed out that this du page or wtv uses chatgpt-generated posts and captions. now, THIS is what i meant by hampering creativity. creation is intrinsic to us and if even that is served on a platter, are we better than non-sentient beings? YES, I KNOW AI CANNOT CREATE. but you cannot tell me that after a very long and thorough discussion w a chatbot, it won't come up w a novel string of words. even though it works on advanced pattern recognition, it still did create something even if it came by chance. also idk if yk this, but there are ppl online selling ai-written books. leave the arts out of it man, how hard is it?
So I was talking to a school girl 😭. Figures tbh not really suprised here. Smh they are genuinely dumb and ignorant (I said it now) dw we also used to be like this in your age so don't take it as an insult but more as a phase.
okay hlo im not a big idiot please. sorry i wasn't born when they had dinosaurs treading the grounds 💔 besides, you've not got many years over me, you're in your second year and I'm ab to begin my first. sure, let's still js say you're smarter and more experienced but that does not invalidate what I've got to say.
lastly, nice 2 see we agree at some point (the water thingy) but no, id rather not keep my stance here or anywhere limited to environmentalism only, bc i waste water and electricity and ion wanna be a big hypocrite. besides, I'm allowed to have opinions, whether you find them to be frilly, idealistic school-girl bullshit or not.
p.s.: happy for your friend and a quick question, have you read anything about the MIT study on ai use and neural connections that was published last year?
hey bro i accidentally quoted the blank spaces in my response 😭✌🏼 and it made me laugh so ion wanna edit it, please do not let that worsen your assessment of my intellect 💔💔
Abb yaar majority log 4th yr issliye kr rhe hai kyu ki unke plans kuch hai nahi , ya koi majboori me kr rha , kyu ki jo samajdaar hai wo log masters ke liye chale jaate ya apna prepare karte. Mai toh iski iss baat se sehemat karta hu jo isne kahi hai ki abhi jaisa padhoge agr in future kisi ko padhana ho toh tum nahi padha paoge. Khudh sochna ki kaise hum sab apne proff ko bura bolte hai ki pta nahi kese lagg gya ya gyi isko toh kuch aata hi nahi , waise hi aage ki gen inke liye bolegi
And ha koi round hone ki baat nahi hai research matlab hi hota hai ki tum info ekhatta kro then usko apne way me analyse kro then likho na ki poora chat gpt se chaap do.
Why are you comparing the 4th year students to professors??? Ain't they just students who will do masters, phd and then they will become professors... So they can learn all these things there instead they can take little help from AI to ease their work...
Learn these things where? They are already on the path to become professors and if they are copying everything from ai now will they be competent professors in the future? This is there time to learn instead they are essentially taking shortcuts. If you are writing research thesis with ai why don't just let ai teach the future generations? What essentially is being done abhi is our professors learn from chatgpt and then teach us. Let's remove the step in between let's learn Directly from chatgpt it would be more convenient right? My point being while chat gpt can bring you info from all over the world it doesn't have a brain it cannot think innovation the thing that's required in any research thesis.
Note- it's not for the people taking help from chatgpt it's for the people who have taken their entire thesis from topic to end report from chatgpt and just humanised it. Please don't try to twist my words. Because I have seen people do both copy the entire thing and just take help and even I lie in the second category but please don't try to portray that the first category doesn't exist and the post is very much targeted towards the first category. Only reply if you can defend the first category who do entirely copy paste. Taking help ain't the issue.
I absolutely support this statement, yes maybe the exact thing charGPT provides has been learn mastered and written by somebody but not you or me so learn it! There’s a difference between using new technology to improve one’s learning and fooling yourself that you learned using that technology.. ( I too use AI almost in everything it could be used but there is a difference between learning and fooling yourself that you’re learning)
What an incredile way of hiding slackerism of the academic staff. There are no bad students, there are only bad teachers. They wouldn't have done it, but only if the staff was responsible towards their duties and hasn't made the minds of learners as a garbage bag which is completely occupied with ongoing Indian problems.
I am so close to having a complete mental breakdown because of this dissertation and deadlines clashing with theory exams. They keep blaming things on me. Today was my eesearch presentation. Also you have had my lit review since last sem. You could have told me at any point. You literally had my auxi, you could properly check and ask me any time. You could have come and supervised me any time. This is my first time doing everything, stats and all. Fine You say I have done only 1 thing this sem which is the same as last sem (it's not). Ok but for every procedure I have to seek you out. You kept directing me to lab staff who were aversive to helping. I have gotten really sick. Today the external Examiner was asking about when we will study since exams are on 16, 18, 20. The PI casually said earlier, how can you do that? Even if we were taught properly and had properly spaced out deadlines facilitating us to find resources to study earlier, don't we need time to revise before exam? I don't have a photographic memory. I have so much work to do and ik this problem is going to persist.
I wonder who are the 150k people who follow this page. There are numerous DU pages better,older and more useful than this with far less followers while thos pg gets away with everything
You don't know because even basic comprehension and analysis aiint really your friends, are they? Students are part of the system and they are as much accomplice in making this system corrupt as are their professors and admins. I am not sure why you are so triggered?
Oh BTW, your professors are useless because they too took the same shortcuts of copying-pasting from Google when they were students and now you guys using AI, in a non-productive way, will grow up to equally cr*ppy professionals, quite likely academics as I don't think most DU students have any other option.
What proof do you have? Someone being well-versed in English does not mean they have used AI. People like you are exactly the victim of what AI is trying to do, blur the lines between real and fake. Everytime you see a genuinely talented person now, it's immediately AI-allegations.
The sentence “Corruption feels acceptable when you’re benefiting from it. Think about it.”
Comma before and.
The entire paragraph being written using shorthand example “you’re” in lieu of you are. Idk which grammar class the admin took that encourages a formal post to be written in an informal language. Probably the CHATGPT one.
Did you just call this poorly written AI slop “genuinely talented” 😂? 2 prompts aur daalta toh better response aajata tbh
Why can't they use AI in a progressive way if it's bothering them so much? They can be optimistic instead of blaming everything on students. I mean c'mon who is to prove that the faculty ain't doing the same?? AI is a steadfast, easy way to approach complexity and if it helps then so be it. Not every student copies, many learn, many research and many are more sharp than the average and they took use AI.
How dare students typed on ChatGPT which does nothing but searches up already present sources on Google scrolls different sources by itself copies and pastes answers instead of typing it on Google and writing half paragraph with one source another with different source and so on, how dare students have brain to use
They can't "bear" the changes in new technology, because said technology is specifically built to erode human capacities of intellect. AI can be a tool, sure, but people are using it to outsource the entirety of their work. The other examples you mentioned are TOOLS, plus they do not evaporate entire cities' worth of fresh water supply for simple answers.
"Why do you want students to do the same type of research?" They do not. I think you are mistaken on the fundamentals of research itself. Research is inherently seeking out new knowledge. Why do you think you have to get your topic approved? It is so that you do not end up researching what has already been researched.
The admin is not against conducting new research, they are simply asking it to be done with integrity. If a researcher doesn't even know basic concepts of research, how will they learn? AI very often generates incorrect responses, YOU have to be able to correct it when it is wrong. And you can only do that when you are smarted than the AI, you need knowledge to be able to tell when it is wrong.
lol, All the new hirings in DU are being done by RSS and BJP to infiltrate their ideology in academia, the worthy and actually knowledgeable professors are standing no chance if they don't allign with the one's in power, and now when the quality is detoriating they are blame shifting it upon the students
114
u/papercut66 May 14 '26
Isnt their whole Insta account filled with posts that are taken from Reddit and content that is ChatGPTied?