I'm sorry, so fucking angry. Students with sources that don't exist. Students with sources that exist but then the quotation doesn't exist.
I'm so fucking mad, because it's extra work for me (that I'm sure as hell not getting compensated for), and it also entirely defeats the purpose of the fucking class (it's writing/research, so like, engaging in a discipline and looking at what's been written before on your topic, etc.)
Kill me please. Comrades, I'm so tired. I just want to teach writing. I want to give students a way to exercise agency in the world -- to both see bad arguments and make good ones. They don't care. I'm so tired.
BTW, I took time to look up some of these sources my student used, couldn't find the quotes they quote, so told them the paper is an "A" if they can show me every quotation and failing otherwise. Does this seem like a fair policy (my thought is -- no matter the method, fabrication of evidence is justification for failing work)?
I tried using AI to help find sources for my partners thesis. It's a niche topic on body phenomenology and existentialism in pregnancy and birth. Instead, it cited Heidegger books that don’t even exist. A colleague recommended it, but honestly, you would have to be insane to rely on this.
everyone agrees search engines suck shit now but somehow the "search engine" that just makes shit up is cool :agony:
LLMs in general cannot handle finding quotes because they can't discern between real ideas or regurgitating ideas in a slightly different format.
I get so annoyed when people tell me to ask an AI something. It has no knowledge and no capacity for reason. The only thing it can do is produce an output that an inexpert human could potentially accept as true because the underlying statistics favour sequences of characters that, when converted to text and read by a human, appear to have a confident tone. People talk about AI hallucinating wrong answers and that's giving it too much credit; either everything it outputs is a hallucination that's accepted more often than not, or nothing it outputs is a hallucination because it's not conscious and can't hallucinate, it's just printing sequential characters.
It's advanced autocorrect. Calling it AI is an insult to Skynet.
it's not all that far from the "post what your autocorrect completes this sentence as" thing
the llms are considerably more sophisticated sure, but what they do is fundamentally the same
The more specific the information the more it lies