All my posts: https://learn1.open.ac.uk/mod/oublog/view.php?u=zw219551
or search for 'martin cadwell -caldwell' Take note of the position of the minus sign to eliminate caldwell returns or search for 'martin cadwell blog' in your browser.
I am not on YouTube or social media
Cadwell NOT Caldwell
Don't even bother complaining
[3 minute read ]
I read in a student forum a post in which the student used TurnItIn to check her written assignment for plagiarism. Of course, the references at the bottom of the page she submitted will always be so common that they will be considered to be evidence of plagiarism, so the response she got from TurnItIn was that some of her assignment seemed to be plagiarism.
She re-submitted her work to TurnItIn and the response was that more of her work is considered to be plagiarism. She did it again and even more of her work was deemed to be plagiarism.
She was actually plagiarising herself in greater amounts.
I don't use any checking software at all. I have no intention of submitting my work to train software on what is normal. I suspect that, eventually, the average person will, even though they have never used it, be considered to have used grammar-checking software.
The awful thing about all this, is that if an action has become so embedded in our culture that it is normal practice for bodies and organisations to use or do it, any complaint will, inevitably, fail. I offer an example such as breach of the GDPR in which an organisation provides personal details to a third party.
Our email addresses and telephone numbers are our personal details. These details are not necessary for delivery businesses to be able to complete a delivery; they only need the delivery address, not even a name. A name on a letter or parcel is only for the occupants at the delivery address to know for whom the delivery is for.
However, third-party delivery businesses are commonly given the email addresses of the intended recipient. If this indicates a breach of the GDPR no complaint will ever succeed. The reason for this, is that the entire UK would be able to make a claim for financial recompense. The result would be that all delivery companies would go into administration overnight. The UK would be in the stone age. No organisation that deals with this kind of complaint can allow it to succeed. This means that formal complaints may be a thing of the past, and a threat to reveal a mistake or poor action to the world through social media and other outlets may become more desirable. The extent of the this is such that it may however, be considered to be blackmail. I will reveal all if you don't compensate me.
I think it is important to consider the wider context when making a complaint. I am definitely not saying 'Suck it up'. I would always say 'Stand up for yourself' but there are things that we just have to accept. Something like changing a mistake that is systemic, I think, takes a group; a group that is persistent and vastly superior to an individual. Their vitality lies in mutual support, fresh approaches and energy, and importantly experience and knowledge.
However, I am not suggesting that there should be class actions or protests. I am suggesting that universities rely on AI for a great deal of their normal activities. This considered complaint, I suggest, is loose evidence that AI has become so widespread that none of us can really tell where it begins or ends. As such, it is systemic to treat students as guilty for using text-generative software, and this is the first hurdle modern students face; but this is because many students will cheat with text-checking software. Ultimately, this could mean that we must spy on our friends and reveal them as cheats.
If your assignment or dissertation appears to be an example of homogenisation, it is because you have emulated AI which emulates all of us.