Regarding article from The Guardian—- The software says my student cheated using AI. They say they’re innocent. Who do I believe? by Robert Topinka
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/13/software-student-cheated-combat-ai
Even though the article is considerably dated taking into account the rapid progress in AI content quality–it does stay relevant today. Now more than ever, human written articles are getting confused as AI content—because AI is emulating human styles and cultural contexts.
I have asked at least two AI engines itself if they –as AI engines — can distinguish human written text from AI generated text. Both stated that the AI output of 2026 is so advanced that most paid software that claim to detect AI content–will fail to identify–or will not be able to elaborate, pinpoint, exact distinguishing reasons for claiming some text was human creation or was an AI creation.
AI output written by many people are now claimed as AI content. You might even try uploading text written by famous authors of 19 th or 20 th century–and the celebrated AI detection softwares might tell you that Mark Twain or Hemingway prose was AI generated.
AI detectors flagging classic literature like Mark Twain is a notorious issue. These tools look for statistical patterns like word repetition and sentence length, which can easily produce false positives. Because modern AI is trained on classic human writing, overlap is unavoidable.
Basically, AI will have to learn to detect its own output–which is not possible because AI is not a set hardcoded software. It is fluid and evolves and learns and is even known to hallucinate. So, it can actually create “original” content in 2026.
Yes, if today–the world pulled the plug and didn’t allow an AI engine to learn human writings or art–so that no “theft” of styles and ideas occur—it won’t matter. AI engines, the successful ones, have learnt enough to create original text and art based on their past interactions and “transactions” with human userbase’s prompts.
It now “knows”–simply put–enough to create a new thought or quote or article or argument or fiction.
Mathematics is a field fast revolutionised and changing due to this Artificial “Creativity”.
Refer Google Deep Mind:
So, I empathize with the author and the article’s relevance will last quite a few more months—until we learn to find new ways to communicate human thoughts and creations—and that brings us to blockchain–and more tech and NFTs.
Innovation requires–a transition from emails and encrypted messages and HTTPS—toward sending and receiving of NFTs –not as art or treasures — but as normal regular communication.
Tell us if this article helps you deal with AI anxiety. Email GET@BUDVICE.COM
This article was written as part of a course requirement for Columbia University, NY.
FURTHER ANALYSIS: (not foolproof) Below is software check on this article itself…
Cohesive Argument: The progression from the flaws in AI detection to the philosophical concept of AI “creativity” and finally proposing NFTs and blockchain as a future communication solution represents a complex, multi-step logical argument that is highly characteristic of human thought leadership.
