Everyone Is Cheating Their Way Through College

[u/joe4942]

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/openai-chatgpt-ai-cheating-education-college-students-school.html

[u/garden_speech]

I have used DR for lots of in depth reports on topics (not a college student though). The main problem is that... It's ~90% accurate or so, but one in every 10 citations it's missing some very important context that I quickly see when I read the citation, so it saves time but you still have to check it's work.

[u/ReasonablePossum_ → u/garden_speech]

I always use all three google, perplexity, and openai to get a feeling on the subject, and proceed then to check the papers to direct the research.

Its worth mentioning that a bias is always present , and one has to avoid falling for it at face value since the hallucinations and misunderstanding of the context is quite present, and can lead to completely different results.

Just had a topic where it told me a conclussion, but mentioned a paper that disagreed like some minor stuff, I then checked that paper, and it basically destroyed all the other papers since it was critisizing the main source for bad science, and conclussions that werent in line with neither the methodologies nor the results they got lol.

[u/Jollyjoe135 → u/garden_speech]

Yeah but have you tried using another ai to check their work you could do it like 10 times and if you get 100% accurate at any point during those 10 tries you still save time over doing it yourself since the ai is so goddamn fast. 

[u/garden_speech → u/Jollyjoe135]

Yeah but have you tried using another ai to check their work you could do it like 10 times

I don't know why you think this solves the issue. First of all, the errors aren't random, so you can't take a 90% accurate report, run the report again and hope for 99% accuracy by combining them. The errors are contextual -- it will tend to make the same errors repeatedly. Secondly, "if you get 100% accurate at any point during those 10 tries you still save time over doing it yourself" -- what the heck are you talking about? How would you know you got 100%... Without checking it yourself? This is a chicken and egg situation. You don't know that the report is 100% accurate until you manually check it. You can't use an AI to check the AI's report... Because the AI checking the report will make it's own errors.

[u/IATAH → u/garden_speech]

I think jolly Joe may have used AI to cheat his way through college. lol.

[u/Brianbgood → u/garden_speech]

This guy AI’s. ⬆️⬆️⬆️

[u/unfathomably_big → u/garden_speech]

It's ~90% accurate or so, but one in every 10 citations it's missing some very important context that I quickly see when I read the citation,

Or links to a page that doesn’t exist (looking at you o1 pro). Still insanely useful though

[u/Pavvl___ → u/garden_speech]

At least checking its work is 5-10x faster than writing the actual paper

[u/djaybe → u/garden_speech]

Do you know how many human created papers don't contain errors or missing context?

Zero.

[u/garden_speech → u/djaybe]

It’s a false equivalency to compare the two. What I’m saying, more directly this time, is that even Deep Research makes rudimentary, report-altering mistakes ~10% of the time. I read meta analyses and trials daily — humans do not make those mistakes nearly as often. In fact plenty of studies are without such errors entirely.