Understand AI at Riverdale: Difference between revisions

Line 24:

For more in-depth information about Riverdale's AI Policy, please find the policy resources as outlined below:

* (Employees) The AI Policy, AI Tutor Chart, and Cover Sheet are linked under the Employee Portal MS/US Page under '''''Academics'''''

* (Employees) The AI Policy, AI Tutor Chart, and Cover Sheet are linked under the [https://portals.veracross.com/riverdale/faculty/pages/ms-us Employee Portal MS/US Page under '''''Academics''''']

* (Students) Teachers will share the policy with you in class. It will be linked in the Student Handbook shortly.

* (Students) Teachers will share the policy with you in class. It will be linked in the [https://handbook.riverdale.edu Student Handbook] shortly.

== Detecting AI Work ==

== 🔎 Detecting AI Work ==

While it may seem tempting to use AI text detectors to identify potential instances of academic dishonesty, there are several reasons why these tools are not always a good choice. AI text detectors often struggle to accurately identify whether a piece of text was written by a human or generated by AI~~. False positives can occur, unfairly penalizing students for work they genuinely created. Additionally, many AI text detection tools operate as "black boxes," meaning they~~ do not provide clear explanations for their decisions. This lack of transparency can make it difficult for ~~educators~~ to justify their conclusions about potential plagiarism or to provide meaningful feedback to students. Finally, AI text detectors often require access to students' work, which can raise concerns about data privacy and security. The use of such tools might conflict with privacy policies or student rights, especially if sensitive [[Understand Privacy Policies|data is shared with third-party services]] without proper consent.

While it may seem tempting to use AI text detectors to identify potential instances of academic dishonesty, there are several reasons why these tools are not always a good choice. AI text detectors often struggle to accurately identify whether a piece of text was written by a human or generated by AI and do not provide clear explanations for their decisions. This lack of transparency can make it difficult for teachers to justify their conclusions about potential plagiarism or to provide meaningful feedback to students.

Given these concerns, '''''Riverdale does not recommend AI detectors''''' in favor of more reliable methods, such as using '''''revision history''''' in Google Workspace or '''''Turnitin's plagiarism detection''''' capabilities. These tools offer a more transparent, effective, and ethical approach to validating student work. More information about Revision History Tools can be found in the article below.

* [[Validate Student Created Work]]

~~[[Access Flint]]~~

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 For more in-depth information about Riverdale's AI Policy, please find the policy resources as outlined below:
-* (Employees) The AI Policy, AI Tutor Chart, and Cover Sheet are linked under the Employee Portal MS/US Page under '''''Academics'''''
+* (Employees) The AI Policy, AI Tutor Chart, and Cover Sheet are linked under the [https://portals.veracross.com/riverdale/faculty/pages/ms-us Employee Portal MS/US Page under '''''Academics''''']
-* (Students) Teachers will share the policy with you in class. It will be linked in the Student Handbook shortly.
+* (Students) Teachers will share the policy with you in class. It will be linked in the [https://handbook.riverdale.edu Student Handbook] shortly.
-== Detecting AI Work ==
+== 🔎 Detecting AI Work ==
-While it may seem tempting to use AI text detectors to identify potential instances of academic dishonesty, there are several reasons why these tools are not always a good choice. AI text detectors often struggle to accurately identify whether a piece of text was written by a human or generated by AI. False positives can occur, unfairly penalizing students for work they genuinely created. Additionally, many AI text detection tools operate as "black boxes," meaning they do not provide clear explanations for their decisions. This lack of transparency can make it difficult for educators to justify their conclusions about potential plagiarism or to provide meaningful feedback to students. Finally, AI text detectors often require access to students' work, which can raise concerns about data privacy and security. The use of such tools might conflict with privacy policies or student rights, especially if sensitive [[Understand Privacy Policies|data is shared with third-party services]] without proper consent.
+While it may seem tempting to use AI text detectors to identify potential instances of academic dishonesty, there are several reasons why these tools are not always a good choice. AI text detectors often struggle to accurately identify whether a piece of text was written by a human or generated by AI and do not provide clear explanations for their decisions. This lack of transparency can make it difficult for teachers to justify their conclusions about potential plagiarism or to provide meaningful feedback to students.
 Given these concerns, '''''Riverdale does not recommend AI detectors''''' in favor of more reliable methods, such as using '''''revision history''''' in Google Workspace or '''''Turnitin's plagiarism detection''''' capabilities. These tools offer a more transparent, effective, and ethical approach to validating student work. More information about Revision History Tools can be found in the article below.
 * [[Validate Student Created Work]]
-[[Access Flint]]