Search results

The use of generative artificial intelligence (genAi) language models such as ChatGPT to write assignment text is well established. This paper aims to assess to what extent genAi can be used to obtain guidance on how to avoid detection when commissioning and submitting contract-written assignments and how workable the offered solutions are.

Although ChatGPT is programmed not to provide answers that are unethical or that may cause harm to people, ChatGPT’s can be prompted to answer with inverted moral valence, thereby supplying unethical answers. The authors tasked ChatGPT to generate 30 essays that discussed the benefits of submitting contract-written undergraduate assignments and outline the best ways of avoiding detection. The authors scored the likelihood that ChatGPT’s suggestions would be successful in avoiding detection by markers when submitting contract-written work.

While the majority of suggested strategies had a low chance of escaping detection, recommendations related to obscuring plagiarism and content blending as well as techniques related to distraction have a higher probability of remaining undetected. The authors conclude that ChatGPT can be used with success as a brainstorming tool to provide cheating advice, but that its success depends on the vigilance of the assignment markers and the cheating student’s ability to distinguish between genuinely viable options and those that appear to be workable but are not.

This paper is a novel application of making ChatGPT answer with inverted moral valence, simulating queries by students who may be intent on escaping detection when committing academic misconduct.

INDUSTRIALLY the two ‘in’ words today seem to be participation and consensus, the first leading to the second. How these can become a reality in modern business was discussed recently by the London Region of the Institute of Work Study Practitioners.

Rates of less perceptible social–behavioral–emotional disorders thought to be based in neurobiological brain differences have burgeoned, though much of disability studies remains focused on the need to challenge compulsory able-bodiedness. This chapter examines instead diverse families living with adult sons’ and daughters’ invisible disabilities, asking how mothers may challenge compulsory able-mindedness.

This chapter is based on 15 in-depth interviews conducted in 2017 and 2018 with mothers originally interviewed between 2003 and 2008.

The accounts foreground tensions for those at the boundaries of “normality” in a culture that valorizes citizen’s independence, productivity, and heroic overcoming of any inability. Mothers of “precariously normal” adult sons and daughters invited to reflect on their earlier accounts reveal both the power of such dominant narratives and the possibilities to disrupt and challenge this public storytelling.

Findings of this study point to the alternative narratives and identities sought by disability studies and bring invisible social–behavioral–emotional disabilities into discussions that have largely centered on visible physical disabilities. These findings also underscore the complex similarities and differences in families’ experiences of disability across class and race divides, while suggesting the need for institutional change and greater, less punitive, public resources.