Inicio
todoELE
  • Inicio
  • Materiales
    • πŸ“‹ Actividades
    • πŸ“ Conjugación
    • πŸ“Š Corpus
    • πŸ“” Diccionarios
    • βœ… Evaluación
    • βš™οΈ Gramática
    • πŸ“— Manuales
    • ✍️ Ortografía
    • πŸ“… Programación
    • πŸ—£οΈ Pronunciación
    • πŸ“ Recursos
    • πŸ”€ Vocabulario
    • πŸ’» Herramientas digitales
  • Formación
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía
    • πŸ‘₯ Congresos
    • πŸŽ“ Cursos
    • 🏫 Centros
    • 🏒 Organizaciones
    • πŸ“° Revistas
    • 🌍 Atlas de ELE
  • Trabajo
    • πŸ’Ό Ofertas de trabajo
    • ℹ️ Trabajo - Recursos
  • En la red
    • 🌐 Sitios ELE
    • πŸ“° Agregador
    • πŸ“§ Formespa
  • IA
    • ✨ Nuevos contenidos
    • πŸ“š Bibliografía IA
    • 🧰 Herramientas IA
    • πŸ’¬ Prompts
    • πŸ§ͺ Experiencias IA
    • 🌐 Sitios web IA
    • πŸ“° Actualidad IA
  • Comunidad
    • πŸ“° Actualidad ELE
    • 😊 Anécdotas ELE
    • πŸ“ Blog
    • πŸ“ŒTablón de anuncios
  • Buscar

Ruta de navegación

  • Inicio
  • Bibliografia
  • GenAI detection tools, adversarial techniques and implications for inclusivity in higher education

Sección IA: Inteligencia artificial Bibliografía

GenAI detection tools, adversarial techniques and implications for inclusivity in higher education

Mike Perkins
Jasper Roe
Binh H. Vu
Darius Postma
Don Hickerson
James McGaughran
Huy Q. Khuat
2024
arXiv
https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.19148
artículo
estudio experimental
estudio empírico
inteligencia artificial
integridad académica
evaluación
inclusión y equidad
educación superior
IA y evaluación
análisis de producción de IA
estudio empírico

Texto completo

This study investigates the efficacy of six major Generative AI (GenAI) text detectors when confronted with machine-generated content that has been modified using techniques designed to evade detection by these tools (n=805). The results demonstrate that the detectors' already low accuracy rates (39.5%) show major reductions in accuracy (17.4%) when faced with manipulated content, with some techniques proving more effective than others in evading detection. The accuracy limitations and the potential for false accusations demonstrate that these tools cannot currently be recommended for determining whether violations of academic integrity have occurred, underscoring the challenges educators face in maintaining inclusive and fair assessment practices. However, they may have a role in supporting student learning and maintaining academic integrity when used in a non-punitive manner. These results underscore the need for a combined approach to addressing the challenges posed by GenAI in academia to promote the responsible and equitable use of these emerging technologies. The study concludes that the current limitations of AI text detectors require a critical approach for any possible implementation in HE and highlight possible alternatives to AI assessment strategies.

Preprint depositado en arXiv (licencia CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

  • Inicie sesión para enviar comentarios

Enviar publicación

Contenidos relacionados

  • GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers
  • The AI Assessment Scale (AIAS) in action: A pilot implementation of GenAI-supported assessment
  • Testing of detection tools for AI-generated text
  • AI detectors in universities: Time to turn them off and embrace AI for enhanced learning
  • GPT-3.5 para la nivelación de ELE en un entorno universitario: Un estudio comparativo de zero-shot learning y fine-tuning
  • Reimagining the Artificial Intelligence Assessment Scale: A refined framework for educational assessment
Sobre Todoele Índice Publica Contacto: todoele@gmail.com
Política de privacidad Créditos