In an online discussion post, Alcorn State University history professor Dr. Jason Gibson posed a question that represented part of his students' midterm. It was about the...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 67 points 3 hours ago (5 children)

This is hysterical. Like the cheaters couldn't even be bothered to proof read what the AI wrote to make sure it was correct.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    People are dumb. People will always be dumb, there's no getting away from it.

    We are just apes after all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 hours ago

    You haven't ran into someone doing this on work emails?

    They don't read the full email they get, just far enough to see if they got what they want. Then they plug it into an AI, and tell it to respond, then copy/paste it back to Outlook and hit reply.

    They'll keep doing that, over and over. And it usually ends up with them insisting on a meeting to "discuss" where they essentially get in a loop of "it'll work, just do it"

    And it's like pulling fucking teeth to get them to admit the only thing they're basing that on, is a chatbot told them it would work.

    People are worried about the kids, and we should be, but it rotted adults brains even faster, and because of their age they've got a much shorter clock to stop using it before effects are permanent. Couple with Covid related IQ drops and the fact that time is linear and we'll keep getting older...

    Society is fucked.

    We need to seriously treat AI like an addictive drug that people aren't capable of limiting themselves with.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Most people who use AI to write something can't be bothered to make sure it is correct. It pisses me off at work so bad when someone "writes" a document or does "research" with AI and just copy pastes it into an email without actually reading to see if it makes sense.

    I got so pissed of a couple months ago when people were telling me about a "great research document" that someone put together for something we had coming up that we desperately needed information about. As soon as they shared the document to me I realized it was completely AI generated and 1/3 of it didn't make a lick of sense. I wanted to yell at the person who created it to at least take 10 minutes to delete all of the obviously incorrect crap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    You've hit the nail on the head. What you're describing isn't just laziness — it's a fundamental breakdown of trust in the modern workplace. Let's delve into this.

    Here's the thing: when someone copy-pastes AI output without reading it, the document was never the deliverable — the verification was the deliverable. The prose isn't load-bearing; the checking is. A document nobody read isn't a document — it's a liability with formatting.

    And that's the thing, isn't it? Is the AI actually the problem here? No — the workflow is. This genuinely comes down to ownership:

    • Trust erodes silently. Every unchecked paragraph is a small withdrawal from a shared account nobody audits — until the balance is zero.
    • Verification is idempotent. Ten minutes of reading costs the same whether you do it once or a hundred times — but skipping it compounds.
    • The failure isn't technical — it's cultural. No review, no judgment, no accountability.

    This is exactly the kind of thing that starts as one bad research doc and scales — from a single email, to a team norm, to an entire organization quietly outsourcing its thinking. In today's fast-paced world, the ability to say "I read this and I stand behind it" isn't just a soft skill — it's a superpower, and honestly? A testament to the rich tapestry of what human-AI collaboration could be.

    Ultimately, your colleague didn't fail to use AI correctly — they failed to be the human in the loop. The tool didn't remove their judgment. They left it at the door.

    I hope this helps! Would you like me to draft a one-page best-practices memo your team can circulate? 🚀

    /s in case this isn't blatantly obvious

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

    That happens with classes like history or philosophy, the ones that are considered to be mostly useless blablabla.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Regardless of what history is being taught, people like you often forget that the goal is to also help you develop your brain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    Those being treated as useless (goes back to No Child) is the fucking problems

    Humans are not innately moral, someone needs to teach them that shit, that's what history and philosophy is for

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 38 minutes ago)

    (goes back to No Child)

    In the US, that shit goes back at least to the GI Bill post-WW2 and the Cold War STEM obsession that took root after the Soviets launched Sputnick. For better or worse, and to be clear a very real portion of it was for worse, before that time College or University was a finishing school, hopefully to include intellectual development, for future elites. Well-read, well-rounded and well-spoken were the expectation, and it was a ticket to opportunities.

    After the war, we simply adapted the existing educational infrastructure to a vastly expanded audience who were now told that some degree was the ticket to any promising white-collar career; teachers colleges, technical colleges, and completely new institutions all moved to a model based on the prominent pre-war universities, but with very different "customers". The students were there to get a professional credential, not to secure social cachet. The democratization of higher education was very real, but the number of people who needed to be college graduates far outstripped the number who wanted to think deeply about literature, history, and philosophy (or at least the number of people who understood that pretending to do so was part of the social contract).

    Then, to make sure we didn't fall behind the Commies, as many resources, financial and social, as possible were poured into STEM programs. This was again within this same "University" paradigm, so students who had no particular desire to study history or philosophy were being required to do so, but 95%+ of the institutional and cultural signals they got told them this was busy work required by ivory towered non-entities who didn't do anything "real."

    The humanities professors and department chairs see all this too, so they take steps to avoid making waves and keep their jobs, and keep their departments as healthy as possible. Undergraduate coursework, both the assignments and the expectations, gets watered down, especially for GenEd required courses. There's genuine stuff to unpack as to why, how, and how much STEM kids and jobseeking kids should be required to study the humanities after high school (Peter Thiel comes to mind as someone who maaaaybe should have avoided college level philosophy courses), but the particular way it went down in the US was not very healthy. Ironically, in fighting to preserve the vestiges of a liberal-arts education, its defenders may have undercut its perception.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    They are useless. History is useless by definition; and philosophy has reached the peak of its usefulness somewhere in the middle of the XIX century and can't do better anymore. Like alchemy, which was useful at some point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 33 minutes ago (1 child)

    What makes something useful to you? Does it need to be something done or learned purely for the sake of profits? Does it need to be cold and unfeeling data for it to matter?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 19 minutes ago (1 child)

    That's the question I can't answer. Really, I can't formulate a really nice definition of usefulness. But still I can't think of any use for history. Except maybe fun as in "literature". But being fun doesn't justify its teaching at school. Drinking alcohol is fun too, but...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 54 minutes ago (1 child)

    Often, people who say that philosophy and the study of history are useless endeavours are hoping for the resurrection of some historical philosophy or another and they don't want people to find out how and why it failed.

    Are you one of those people?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments