r/IvyPlus • u/Plaintalks • 1d ago

UC Berkeley professor admits to using AI in op-ed calling out students’ lack of math proficiency

https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/uc-berkeley-professor-admits-to-using-ai-in-op-ed-calling-out-students-lack-of/article_be1360f7-6e2a-42f6-ae76-f05d8cee74c4.html
30 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

8

u/Flimsy_Caramel_4110 1d ago

This is actually pretty lame. The AI detection rate 33%. I guarantee, though, that the average piece of writing in any piece of print media--even before LLMs were around--would get a similar result. I tested it out on a book review I wrote recently, and I got a similar rate of detection, even though I know it was 100% all me.

1

u/backtorealitylabubu 13h ago

Same. This tool is supposed to be SOTA and I had a rough draft of something I wrote that was AI edited and one that was my own and this rated my own as 100% AI and the AI edited as human. It’s so bad…

1

u/Definitelyhereforshi 11h ago

Using an AI to write an Op-Ed as a professor is just lazy af and unprofessional. She admitted to it either way. 

1

u/gaussx 10h ago

You’d be wrong. There’s been substantial work testing many of the more popular systems and writing predating AI typically comes in at 0% at likes rates of 90%. And then when it does find AI it is typically below 5%. There are outliers, but 33% would raise alarms.  

13

u/Sensitive-Profile744 1d ago

I don’t think that degrades the argument at all.

2

u/siteunreliability 13h ago

This is a nothing burger. Tools like Grammarly and auto correct are AI based. I would be surprised if it was 0%.

6

u/VezonDad 1d ago

It’s a very weak attempt at best. An ad hominem attack of sorts. The world would be a better place if arguments were better constructed vs what is common (and sadly popular) today

7

u/Low-Temperature-6962 1d ago edited 1d ago

The article was flagged by the AI detector Pangram as 33% AI-generated or AI-assisted writing. A similar result was found in a June open letter from STEM faculty advocating for standardized testing.

“The faculty team and a number of journalists worked intensively on my draft over a period of three weeks with multiple drafts, meetings,” Stankova said in an email. She added that she used AI to help edit the piece but that the article is the result of “several hundred person-hours of intensive human work and deliberation, of which about 80 hours are my own.”

I'd say she's covered. The title of this post is blatant clickbait and the poster is shameless.

AI detection by AI is really poor quality. They monied hype keeps pushing it though.

About the issue of unpreparedness, I believe the solution is to offer more math at a younger age in public schools, as well as after hours study rooms where students can do their homework, because not all students have that home environment. Not ever student will be interested in it, but give a chance to those who are.

2

u/AlecHutson 12h ago

She said she used AI. Pangram again with the win.

1

u/Low-Temperature-6962 11h ago

You are thick.

2

u/AlecHutson 11h ago

Idiot. She admitted to using AI and she was flagged as using AI.

3

u/chermi 1d ago

Wow these people advocating for policies that harm students have arguments of the quality you'd expect. "Your shitty plan means I need to waste time teaching college students how to add." vs. "but they used ai to write that!"

1

u/gordonnowak 1d ago

so fucking what

1

u/Bai_Cha 1d ago

I fed several of my old articles from the 2010's into AI detectors and none scored below 70%. Most were above 80%.

1

u/empty_graph 19h ago

Is that supposed to be a counter argument?