i mean, imho: if you think ~400 words of text constitutes a “wall of text,” then i think you’re functionally illiterate. but that’s just my take.

you’re right to point to that hole in my rhetoric.

truthfully, it is a number i remember seeing widely cited while researching the topic years ago and i don’t have an immediate source to offer you. it largely comes out of studies around the late 80s through the early 00s; and it comes, for the most part, from studies that focused on narrow, immediate groups. think asking students currently taking or freshly out of a course about integrity. more recent research in this field shows that over a lifetime the vast majority of people engage in academically dishonest behaviors at least once and the research tends to focus on that, which is why you tend to see very high numbers reported: they have the caveat of the scope being expanded to lifetimes or careers rather than more momentary snapshots. because basically everyone has done it at some point, statistically speaking. maybe try looking for modern research focusing on serial cheating. those numbers tend to be more in line with the older figures i mention. whether or not that is ethically/statistically significant or not is up to the reader, obviously. i think it is a shift in methodology that looks at flashier and bigger percentages for dubious reasons, personally.

i will make an effort to find you specific sources when i get some time either today or tomorrow but for now you can likely find many of these figures cited by searching for the journal of academic ethics using ERIC, focusing on earlier sources to find the methodology behind the mythical “25-35%” idea. you will also see more modern research that paints a general picture showing academic integrity is more a systemic issue than an individual moral failing, which seems to be scholarly consensus at this point although I won’t make that claim outright because it isn’t my field. i admire you wanting to seek out sources and verify information, sorry if i wasn’t helpful enough in the immediate now! i will either edit this comment or make a new one so you get the ping once i find specific sources to share to help your research. for now, i hope the ERIC query i provided is a good enough jumping off point.

the problem with your response isn’t that you used AI, it’s that you attempt to use it in place of your own agency and intellectual ability instead of as a supplement to it.

correct me if i’m wrong but it seems like the idea here is that you want me to point out how clearly piss-poor your response is and then flip it back on me to say “HA you’re a HYPOCRITE!! SEE! AI IS BAAAaaaaAAaDDDdD!!!”

students in the 2000s copying and pasting things mindlessly into Google and thoughtlessly regurgitating strings they find online were engaging in genuine academically dishonest behavior. that isn’t because search engines are bad though, plenty of people used Google honestly, and I think anyone with a fucking brain can see that. so, why then, do people wanna make the same stupid-ass argument when it comes to AI? are you so fucking swept up in the zeitgeist as to not see your own hypocrisy?

like I said, all straw and no fucking man is what you people are.

and, if I am misreading your intentions here, which is assuredly possible… then I refer back to my initial statement in this reply.

yeah, and that should horrify you: because Western anti-AI hysteria is deeply rooted in a fascist cultural obsession with “ownership” of thoughts and ideas.

who the fuck cares if you used an AI tool to do work?

a decently designed course in academia won’t be something you can just “cheat” on. there’s this implication that the behavior is somehow the responsibility of the student body, so much so they should be punished for it; when there is no accountability for the professors and educators who actually design a shit-ass curriculum that makes students engage in these behaviors rather than actually learning. students are the victims here, not academia. academic dishonesty policies assume there is some massive contingent of students trying to “cheat the system” at all times and thus we must rabidly defend academia from it, as if she is some virgin maid. that isn’t true. the vast majority of students do not cheat. self-reported rates of cheating remain at a constant 25-35% of the student body over large periods of time. why? because it’s a myth. there aren’t large numbers of people trying to “defraud” academia. sure, it happens, but is it enough to justify the many more lives that are ruined by frivolous accusations?

i would cite case studies but literally it is so fucking common just google search and take your pick for whatever story tickles your exact rhetorical mindset.

and no, i’m not some “cheater” myself trying to defend academic dishonesty. i’ve played by the rules my entire academic career and im not gonna sit and be strawmanned bc i happen to notice the absolutely fucking egregious grifts and power imbalances that compose the modern academy. these people will charge you hundreds of thousands of dollars and then treat you worse than a fucking minimum wage mcdonald’s employee might treat the customers. it’s absolutely fucked in every way, they are enemies to education and human knowledge. education is important, knowledge should be FREE for everyone no matter what!

you should be pissed that these people masquerade as intellectuals when they’re nothing more than cowards trying to steal opportunity from the youth. it is not the place of the teacher to be the arbiter of discipline, that is the most heinous misreading of pedagogical principles and the fact that it has been allowed to go on for so long is a large part of why we sit here at the precipice of a new mass genocide, with thousands of ignorant fools clamoring it on or being willfully blind to it happening.

you work in technology, presumably. so you’re supposedly an engineer of sorts.

what kind of engineer says obviously wrong statements based on their feelings?

i’m willing to provide different sources and discussion if you object to that one for some reason but virtually all facets of research agree current artificial intelligence performance is nothing like what you are suggesting. what you’re claiming just isn’t true and you are spreading misinformation. it’s okay to be scared but it’s not okay to lie.

the other guy pretty clearly meant liberal in a social & political philosophy sense and not a “liberal v conservative” modern american political theater one. i won’t speak for ferrous but i would imagine that’s why you didn’t get a reply of sorts yet. it’s kind of surprising and unsettling the amount of upvotes your comments have relative to each other but then again it seems reading comprehension is a skill more and more left to a select few.

like, anyone from .ml probably means liberal in that sense but in the particular context of this comment he definitely did and i’m confused why you’re getting upvoted when your reply is nonsensical considering liberalism is not diametric to conservative ideology within most frameworks.

sorry not to be a chode but wishy washy symbols like the ambiguity of the word “liberal” in modern discourse is a large part of what has landed us here in the first place.

no, i definitely do.

copyright is the opposite of freedom of speech. any other interpretation is just bending the truth. what is copyright other than putting a monetary value on data and information as if it were a commodity that can be bought, sold, and owned?

how the fuck is that not directly antithetical to freedom of information? freedom of speech and freedom of information are the same ideas, or at least any true proponent of free speech is a proponent of freedom of information. ig except dense fucking westoids who can’t seem to grasp basic logical concepts.

why does it matter?

lmfao the fucking 1984 doublespeak shit that lets these fucks edge their way into normalcy shouldn’t be tolerated. he did a roman solute full stop. why is this even something that people entertain debating?

act like they’re the stupid fucking idiots they are so they go crawling back into the depths of hell in shame, where they came from

Removed by mod

i hate how brainwashed westerners are. will go on a diatribe about the importance of free speech and then rabidly defend copyright as if it isn’t directly contrary to the idea of freedom of information, all in the same breath.

inb4 that’s a description of every reply to this comment.

that’s fair, my absolute statement doesn’t reflect the exclusive way anti fraud laws are written. you certainly might find and successfully exploit legal ways to lie for financial gain, but at best it’s unethical and at worst you’ll have to defend why your deceit isn’t criminal fraud in a lawsuit. it kind of depends on who you piss off the most, imo.

uh, yes? it’s at the least fraud fs? the article says the doj is charging mike smith with three money laundering charges and one count of wire fraud. obviously the wire fraud charge comes from an argument that smith defrauded the distribution companies into illegitimately paying out royalties for false streams. note that the artificial intelligence solution only comes into the argument for the purposes of how he committed the crime, it really had nothing to do with the crime itself, at least intrinsically. if you read the press release from the doj, you can see that they make a pretty airtight argument that, quote:

SMITH made numerous misrepresentations to the Streaming Platforms in furtherance of the fraud scheme. For example, SMITH repeatedly lied to the Streaming Platforms when he used false names and other information to create the Bot Accounts and when he agreed to abide by terms and conditions that prohibited streaming manipulation. SMITH also deceived the Streaming Platforms by making it appear as if legitimate users were in control of the Bot Accounts and streaming music when, in fact, the Bot Accounts were hard coded to stream SMITH’s music billions of times. SMITH also caused the Streaming Platforms to falsely report billions of streams of his music, even though SMITH knew that those streams were in fact caused by the Bot Accounts rather than real human listeners.

SMITH’s hundreds of thousands of AI-generated songs were streamed by his Bot Accounts billions of times, which allowed him to fraudulently obtain more than $10 million in royalties.

it is not illegal to lie. it is absolutely illegal to lie for the purposes of financial gain. sure, i’m not disagreeing that what he did could not somehow be construed as something of a robin hood character arc (even tho he most certainly did this for the purposes of his own personal enrichment). but he almost definitely is guilty of the wire fraud charge and i do have a strong feeling, based on the prosecutorial level of this case, the involvement of a specialized division of the fbi, and his purported co-conspirators; that the money laundering charges are ironclad as well. frankly, i’m hoping his co-conspirators actually do end up going to trial and we get to learn what the company that aided in his fraud actually was. on fucking god it’d be one thing if he ran this grift machine for a little while, paid off a lil bit of his debts and all, maybe even lived off of it. but to steal $10 million fucking dollars with it, even when he knew he was committing fraud and had to explicitly hide his criminal activity??? no shit the fbi was hot on your trail. what an absolutely, colossal dipshit michael smith must be. i respect the ingenuity but it is so blindingly obvious that 10 million dollars was egregiously too many times to press a “free money button” you just invented in a capitalist autocratic hellscape.

QUICK EDIT: i do just wanna say also i did not downvote u/shani66 and i just wanted to contribute to discussion. just noticed after i posted someone had downvoted them which is kinda goofy of whoever that is.

that’s a monistic point of view. you clearly have never lived in or near a food desert, or somewhere where fast food is the only option, because oftentimes at a local scale restaurants do buy up all available food resources. sure. these people could subsist off of wild fucking berries outside instead. why not. the choices of large restaurant megacorps weigh heavy on millions.

restaurants provide a service the same way landlords do. just bc you privatized an essential commodity does not immediately make your privatized entity a useful or essential service, and i detest the notion that it does. it’s circular logic.

EDIT: i’m getting downvoted but idc. i still think im right. weep all you want, but at its core, the buying and selling of goods/services represents an ethical dilemma at best and an atrocity at worst. the argument that restaurants are entirely a choice to go to is both overly broad and a straw man. restaurants often do impact people’s budgets and lifestyles, believe it or not. you can’t just blanket say they have no culpability in this arena because reasons. it is the mechanisms of the market and economy themselves that oppress us. it is not inherently human. it is not the only way to organize ourselves. we can do better, and we deserve better. who the fuck cares how much “value” literally anything has? i’ll trade you five smogels for a smilji. yay, everyone magically gained bc of the incantation! grow the fuck up. outdated ideas have no place in modern, civilized society. any imagined net benefits of money you can come up with are a drop in the bucket compared to its power as a stupid fucking thoughtworm