Sydney academic used AI to write SMH opinion piece urging students to avoid using tech to ‘cut corners’ | Australian universities
A leading Sydney academic has used AI to write an opinion piece urging students to “do the work” and not cut corners using this technology; The Sydney Morning Herald removed the “unacceptable” article from its website.
An opinion piece by Western Sydney University’s vice-chancellor for quality and integrity, Prof Cath Ellis, appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald last month. An article by academic Kylie Moore-Gilbert.
Moore-Gilbert wrote that she advised her stepdaughter to think twice before enrolling in college because students could easily transfer their learning to AI, and said students were “graded based on who can write the best AI commands.”
In response, Ellis wrote in his piece that “the AI problem is real” but students still need to go to college and study properly.
“Don’t cut corners. Don’t let others do your thinking, no matter how tempting it is. If the system is as fragile as some claim, then real effort will not be hidden. It will come to the fore,” he wrote.
However, when the column is sent to the AI detector service pangramCreated 100% by artificial intelligence.
In response to questions from Guardian Australia, the university said Ellis used artificial intelligence in writing the column.
“To write the opinion piece, Prof. Ellis loaded 40,000 words from his original materials into the Co-Pilot Large Language Model (LLM). The model summarized his extensive knowledge base and provided prompts,” the spokesperson said.
“This was the basis for early drafts that reflected Prof. Ellis’ own thought, ideas and views generated over more than a decade of dedicated work as a global leader in this field.”
The spokesperson said using graduate education to leverage his own expertise and experience “demonstrates a sophisticated and appropriate use” of generative AI.
“Programs such as Pangram can detect the use of artificial intelligence, but cannot determine whether this use is appropriate or inappropriate,” the spokesperson said. “The university believes that the use of artificial intelligence is appropriate in this situation.”
Ellis’ opinion piece did not acknowledge that generative AI was used to write the article as of Wednesday morning.
The editorial policy of the Sydney Morning Herald’s parent company, Nine, allows writers to use AI for initial research and quick ideas but states: “AI will not be used to write stories for publication.”
The policy specifies where AI-generated material is published and will be clearly labeled, but says “the use of assistive AI does not require declaration.”
Nine people did not respond to Guardian Australia’s questions. But inside Next article published on WednesdayJordan Baker, editor of the Sydney Morning Herald, said the article did not comply with spelling rules and was removed.
“The Herald was not informed that artificial intelligence was used in the compilation of the article by either the author or Western Sydney University,” Baker said.
“Obviously this is unacceptable and we are investigating further.”
As generative AI tools become more integrated into workplaces around the world, incidents of media outlets publishing output from AI without disclosing it are becoming more common. cricket we removed a number of articles from a writer in March after it was revealed that the writer had used AI to help proofread copy.
Also in March, a freelance journalist admitted to using AI to write a book review that repeated elements of an article published in the Guardian, prompting the New York Times to cut ties with him.
Speakers praising artificial intelligence at university graduations have been booed by students in recent weeks amid concerns that job opportunities will decrease as companies replace graduate positions with artificial intelligence.
