成人AV视频鈥檚 Stance on AI Detection Tools
As we navigate the evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education, the university has reviewed the current benefits and challenges involved in using AI detection software.
After researching institutional models and approaches, along with support from university leadership and the AI Council, 成人AV视频 does not recommend using AI detection tools for academic assignments until they become significantly more reliable and transparent.
This decision is based on several key factors, outlined below.
Acknowledged Benefits
While 成人AV视频 acknowledges that AI detection tools may help faculty set expectations, ease concerns, and contribute to a perception of fairness in academic integrity, these benefits are outweighed by the risks and limitations mentioned above.
Implementation and Review
Faculty members are encouraged to familiarize themselves with this guidance and integrate it into their teaching and assessment practices. The university will periodically review its stance and update it as necessary to reflect changes in technology and academic integrity standards.
Need Help Adjusting Your Course or Addressing a Concern?
If you’d like support modifying your course or assignments related to this guidance, the team in CIRT (Center for Instruction & Research Technology) can help. They can assist with redesigning assessments, integrating AI literacy, and aligning your teaching strategies with current best practices. Faculty can contact their instructional design liaison. You can also reach out to the Office of Faculty Excellence for guidance.
If you’re dealing with a potential academic integrity or student conduct issue, please reach out to the Dean of Students Office. They can guide you through the appropriate procedures and ensure that any concerns are addressed fairly and in accordance with university policy.
Rationale
- False Positives: Current AI detection tools often misidentify human writing as AI-generated, creating institutional risk.
- False Negatives: Writing generated by AI tools can be adjusted to include errors, making detection less likely.
- Tool Limitations: Most detectors only work on limited GPT models and are vulnerable to paraphrasing tools.
- Lack of Transparency: Students are typically unaware when these tools are used, and they often cannot view reports.
- Bias: Tools have shown bias, particularly against non-native English writers.
- No Concrete Evidence: Unlike plagiarism tools, AI detectors do not provide verifiable matches—only probabilistic assessments.
- Rapid Evolution: The pace of AI development makes it difficult for detection tools to remain accurate and effective.
Academic Misconduct Cases
成人AV视频’s AI Council has recommended against the use of AI detection tools to identify academic misconduct or unauthorized use of AI in academic exercises. At this time, the tools do not demonstrate sufficient accuracy or transparency to be of use in determining whether a student has violated the Academic Misconduct Policy or the Student Code of Conduct. Additionally, submitting a student’s work to an open-source AI detection tool may violate a student’s privacy rights under FERPA.
The standard for a finding of responsibility in an academic misconduct case is the preponderance of the evidence, and 成人AV视频 bears the burden of proof. In other words, it must be more likely than not that the student committed the violation. If it is more likely or equally likely that the student did not commit the violation, the student must be found not responsible. Given the limitations of AI tools, including false positives/negatives, we cannot rely on them as competent evidence of the violation to meet the burden of proof.
One of the best ways to reduce unauthorized use of AI and confusion about authorized use in your classes is to provide clear guidance in your syllabi.