Somehow, I managed to survive 30 or so days of academic hell.
The hell is still with me, but I have a small breather in which I can now reflect on my inability to comprehend what is going on.
When I first heard the news that AI was a thing, I dismissed it. I saw the headlines, and I did not really pay attention to it. So also the institute where I teach and mark. We did not do anything about it, we did not teach ourselves what it was, how to use it, and so on. Until that first red flag we saw in our system, that was now geared to pick up the use of AI in student writings. At first, I saw it as a gimmick, I "accused" students of using AI (in a very academic and friendly in fact funny manner) and they all said one thing: "I did not use it". How could I really tell if they used AI or not? At that time, it was novel, no one really used it, and we kind of laughed it off.
Fast forward two and a half years. Academia (in my opinion) is literally crumbling. Okay, this is a bit of an exaggeration and I am also biased in terms of the field in which I teach. So, rather, the small section of academia in which I am a part of is crumbling, and no one is seemingly taking it seriously. In the two and a half years since the dawn of AI in student writing, my institution implemented a strict no internet policy in terms of research assignments. The students I am currently teaching, we decided, cannot be trusted with AI, and we as institute cannot accuse students of using AI (there is not "real proof"), so we just make them sit in a room without internet to write their "research essay". But the thing is, this is not research essays. This is a long exam question. Research requires one to search, to see what is written in academia, and to reflect on this in a slow process. Yes, not every student will do this, and the system worked. It fed the students that wanted to do research, like myself, and it spit out student that did not.
I really loved research essays, and I am here today, just having finished a PhD, because of the essays I was given as an undergraduate student. Now, no student is really allowed to do research because lecturers cannot assess papers not written by the student, and we have no way of telling whether a student wrote that paper or not. In the past we had similar issues, how could we tell if a paper was really written by a student, but this problem is on steroids now. Now, we are unable to tell if any student wrote the paper, because AI detectors are unreliable, and institutions cannot accuse someone of doing something if they do not have proof.
But what is the answer? I am not sure. I just awoke from marking more than 200 papers in which I am pretty sure every single one was written by AI. Even though the AI detectors cannot pick it up, I have been marking for a couple of years in the AI era. I have also taught myself how to work with most of the AI models, so I am pretty sure when I say that I know for certain that I did not mark one paper that was written by a human. There are so many clear indications of this (which I am not going to go into now) but I spent two to three weeks of my life marking AI slop...
The realisation is somewhat sobering.
I assessed 200 AI written papers and I am not sure how I feel about this situation.
Academia in my corner of the world, relying on research essays, peer reviewed articles, and so on, is based on written works. Students don't want to write and read, and now they have basically found free ways to read and write papers without lifting a finger.
In my social group, there are so many stories of younger generation students who "brag" and celebrate that they managed to pass a module without ever studying, using AI models for everything. Students are now going to graduate without ever lifting a finger. Or they are going to graduate without having the knowledge of how to write a paper, how to engage with literature, because some institutes literally closed the door on that opportunity.
And I am still sitting here, wondering whether this situation will make us think differently. Because everyone is too afraid to speak about this situation, so we are all actually in the dark on this one...
All of the photographs are my own, taken with my Nikon D300. All of the writing is my own, albeit inspired by a very tired brain and human that somehow just graded 200 computer AI slop.
Congratulations @fermentedphil! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 35000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPCheck out our last posts:
Okay, I just saw this, and as you know my wife is also struggling with no evidence that students use AI. My worry is the future, as when AI is used for a paper, the user will have no understanding about a subject, and subsequently in the workplace it will have dire consequences. I have never used AI, and besides, I don't even know how to use it, but I am old school and only do things my own way.
Blessings and welcome back Dr. Phil :)
We are already seeing this. Crazy times. We should grab a coffee and talk about this issue, will message you.
Thank you so much! Looking forward to engage a bit more now, but I still have loads of marking left. About 200 more papers! But this is less pressing though.
So the way students are assessed needs to change!
Your wife might like this article
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/07/07/the-end-of-the-english-paper
There will be a great "Adjustment" when the crunch-time comes and people need to use their grey matter to perform these tasks, fail, and then, (particularly in other industries) things start to crumble into disarray.
We might be the last generation that sees true innovation. AI does not thoroughly critique as well as a human may.
For sure. And it is sad that universities, where one would think critical thinking is happening, will sort this issue out. But sadly from my experience, universities are no longer places for critical thinking (maybe I had the wrong impression). We call it, in my home language, a "wors masjien" or "sausage maker": universities take students in, press them into a mould, just to make money. No critical thinking is involved. In fact, questioning the status quo might get you into trouble. Alas.
It's bizarre. As you say everyone knew it was coming and no one did anything. The whole way you assess needs to change. One on one conversations, portfolios, student led teaching, who knows - but the essay as it stands is dead. The only way forward is excellent teaching that is passionate and fosters curiosity. Everything else will follow.
Education needed a shake up..
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/07/07/the-end-of-the-english-paper
It's sad to hear so many students are relying on AI. The temptation is just too strong I suppose. I wonder how many of them spend more time revising what AI writes to mask detection than they would've actually writing their papers? Declines in critical thinking and cognitive declines are now well-documented for those relying too heavily on AI to do their thinking for them. I feel like a reckoning is coming as AI detection software gets more sophisticated. The AI detector might even be built into a browser or a plug-in that analyzes everything we read to flag AI-created content.