I went to a computer science department event at Rutgers today, mostly to see
what was there. Ended up talking to a student running the competitive coding
club, and asked him how they handle AI assistance in their contests. His answer
was straightforward. At the in-person events they enforce no-assistance rules
and the rules hold. For the online events, he said, there really isn’t much they
can do.
The same club, same students, and same week… but two different behaviors.
What struck me wasn’t that the online rule fails. (Because of course it does.)
It’s that nobody there is confused about why. The standard holds exactly where
something holds it, and where nothing does, it doesn’t. They know this, and they
run both formats anyway, because the in-person one is worth protecting even if
it only covers part of what they do.
Which also means the two formats are not producing the same kind of result. The
in-person contests measure what they claim to measure. The online ones measure
something else, and everyone involved knows it. I find myself wondering how
often the enforcement mechanism gets described when coding results are cited.
He also asked, about the people working around it, “what did they really win?”
A perceptive question, and I was more encouraged by that conversation than I
expected to be.
Well, I suppose if pangram says so then it must be true. Never mind the fact that I’m literally writing about my own day, an event I attended, and a conversation I had. I’m not sure what inspired you to run this through a checker… Seems like an odd thing to check. But thats fine.
Interesting. This forum has some truly unique community dynamics.
Let’s break this down.
I post a little note about my day, and a young person who gave me a little lift in my spirits because I am genuinely concerned about the future of our discipline.
Another member decides that it must be an AI written post. (I am making an assumption here, but it seems reasonable.)
My post is run through a checker, and the result is posted as a comment.
I respond, quite reasonably, pointing out the flaw in that analysis, and requesting a check of the response. (Because why would I use AI for any of this?)
I get downvoted for supposedly “sneering.”
When i read the ‘Default comment guidelines’ I see:
Aim to explain, not to persuade.
Try to offer concrete models and predictions
If you disagree, try getting curious about what your partner is thinking
Don’t be afraid to say ‘oops’ and change your mind.
Well… look at where this has gone. As regards step 4 above, is this not the very essence of those guidelines? (Or at least several of them?)
This would seem to indicste that the act of simply correcting a flawed AI detector seems to violate an unwritten rule here. It’s becoming pretty clear that the voting mechanics on this forum don’t actually align with its stated ideals, so I’m not going to lose any sleep over the karma score.
Therefore, I said before, that’s fine. And now I will go to sleep.
I went to a computer science department event at Rutgers today, mostly to see what was there. Ended up talking to a student running the competitive coding club, and asked him how they handle AI assistance in their contests. His answer was straightforward. At the in-person events they enforce no-assistance rules and the rules hold. For the online events, he said, there really isn’t much they can do.
The same club, same students, and same week… but two different behaviors.
What struck me wasn’t that the online rule fails. (Because of course it does.) It’s that nobody there is confused about why. The standard holds exactly where something holds it, and where nothing does, it doesn’t. They know this, and they run both formats anyway, because the in-person one is worth protecting even if it only covers part of what they do.
Which also means the two formats are not producing the same kind of result. The in-person contests measure what they claim to measure. The online ones measure something else, and everyone involved knows it. I find myself wondering how often the enforcement mechanism gets described when coding results are cited.
He also asked, about the people working around it, “what did they really win?” A perceptive question, and I was more encouraged by that conversation than I expected to be.
100 percent AI generated according to pangram.
Well, I suppose if pangram says so then it must be true. Never mind the fact that I’m literally writing about my own day, an event I attended, and a conversation I had. I’m not sure what inspired you to run this through a checker… Seems like an odd thing to check. But thats fine.
Was this response written by AI as well?
Interesting. This forum has some truly unique community dynamics.
Let’s break this down.
I post a little note about my day, and a young person who gave me a little lift in my spirits because I am genuinely concerned about the future of our discipline.
Another member decides that it must be an AI written post. (I am making an assumption here, but it seems reasonable.)
My post is run through a checker, and the result is posted as a comment.
I respond, quite reasonably, pointing out the flaw in that analysis, and requesting a check of the response. (Because why would I use AI for any of this?)
I get downvoted for supposedly “sneering.”
When i read the ‘Default comment guidelines’ I see: Aim to explain, not to persuade. Try to offer concrete models and predictions If you disagree, try getting curious about what your partner is thinking Don’t be afraid to say ‘oops’ and change your mind.
Well… look at where this has gone. As regards step 4 above, is this not the very essence of those guidelines? (Or at least several of them?)
This would seem to indicste that the act of simply correcting a flawed AI detector seems to violate an unwritten rule here. It’s becoming pretty clear that the voting mechanics on this forum don’t actually align with its stated ideals, so I’m not going to lose any sleep over the karma score.
Therefore, I said before, that’s fine. And now I will go to sleep.