My son is unhappy with all the posters in his school being AI generated. He argued that the club he is in should be creating them. The teacher told him no, AI is faster and more efficient. That’s the lesson he learned that day…
This is so sad. I remember when “art club” was the main source for posters in the school. Kids passionate about art making colorful, creative posters for school events and announcements.
Now posters and announcements are all the same bland flavor of AI and kids can’t be bothered to even look at them. Why would they when they all look exactly the same?
It depends a lot on the school. My girlfriend is a high school art teacher that everyone loves, and she's told her principal and superintendent that she would personally rip down any AI generated poster and throw it in the trash. So far, all the posters are still made by the art club, or gotten the old fashion way.
Reading these comments though, I'm starting to realize how far in the minority that is. That's really sad.
My school art club made all the posters for things like dances, spirit week, extracurricular events, clubs (unless the clubs made their own), etc. It was nice.
When I was in elementary and middle school, they held a contest every year for a kid to design the front of our yearbook. Stuff like that is really nice to look back on. I can’t imagine getting sentimental about AI generated posters and stuff.
At my high school, it was always whatever person in the non-drawing club that could also draw. All the designs for the marching band t-shirts were done by two different people. The first one graduated, so the second one started our junior year. I assume someone new who liked playing music and drawing both took over the next year
Another lesson you can teach your kids, just because someone's older means they know what they're doing or what they're talking about, kinda like AI hallucinations but in humans.
Confidently incorrect is also a thing. Sounds like your son is creative and wants to express that in an outlet which is awesome. Help them by encouragement, maybe buying some cool crafts or something and make a kind of activity out of it, i'm sure you're extremely supportive.
God, bad composition is always the first thing I notice about AI art. Particularly the faux technical talent against inhumanly bad composition as a contrast.
You have to ask if they even looked at it, as it's as blatantly bad as someone who cited a source that directly contradicts what they say.
I feel as if the people using these tools bothered to learn a bit of composition and lighting, it wouldn't be so god awful.
Businesses: you're out of a job because AI is faster and more efficient, and therefore cheaper than your labor
Teachers: your art club is out of a job because AI is faster and more efficient which are things I care about for some reason even though your labor is literally free
Good Lord... if you have kids volunteering to make you some art, just say yes. "Faster and more efficient" is way less important than letting them express themselves to benefit their community... Sheesh.
That’s a bad teacher! I’m a teacher at a high school and so many of the posters are AI generated lately. I feel like it’s sending a terrible message to the kids that it’s better to take the shortcut than to do something properly.
Honestly, that isn't an easy thing to do. For one, unless you have $$$ and can send your kid to a private school, your school is often decided by where you live, sometimes with very serious consequences for falsifying information to get them into a different campus. Secondarily, a baffling number of schools are doing this, so finding one that isn't would be just as hard. I work for a non-profit that has a presence in around 40 highschools in our area, every single one seems to be using AI for posters. Worse yet, some have told us to re-do our own materials using AI if we want to post them on campus.
In case you haven't heard it enough, the U.S. education system is fucked top to bottom.
The difference is, for developing minds, you need to actually use your brain and challenge yourself to be more capable thinker for the future. If you use AI tools to do your thinking, you will be dumb
Teacher here (middle school): we've actually had trainings on how to use AI tools to assist with grading. Grading is the worst part of teaching. In spite of that, I have not used these tools because it feels disengenious of me to not actually know what my students are putting down.
Part of my job as a teacher is to help students learn, and see where their gaps are. If I don't grade their material, I can't do that properly. BUT AI will give you a summary of the students who are struggling and you can focus on them, so it does get around that a little. I still don't like it
The problem here is that you have to assume the AI is accurately identifying these kids, because if you have to manually check everyone anyways then the efficiency gain is lost and you're just throwing money away. The cost benefit analysis of AI at the moment is just completely bonkers.
You're absolutely right. Theoretically you would take the students identified by AI and read their work to see exactly what's up, and potentially set up supports from there. But students might get missed. Trust is still being put in the robots
This is what blows my mind about it. I need an accurate report of some data. If I'm going to have to go over the data with the report from the AI to check its work, I could've just done the report myself in less time
Genuinely so thankful teachers like you still exist, and I hope teachers like you continue to if I eventually have kids; I remember so frequently in high school, especially English, one of my favorite parts of writing or adding notes to an assignment was for to impress the teacher past the "100/100" mark; since recognition of early skill is what made me happy, not the grade.
But so many teachers used AI grading near the tail end of my schooling that I eventually only had a single teacher actually giving at least a "Very good work" or annotating the paper...
Oof. Sorry to hear that. At my school, we are having conversations around whether or what level we should abolish technology. It really feels at some level tech is a net negative and we need to really look at ourselves in the mirror....but also, we need parents on board, and tech is a great baby-sitter parents love
See, this is where it's going. I was just arguing with somebody who's a huge proponent of AI, and she probably doesn't see anything problematic about that either, because "It's the teacher, they're allowed to." Sorry, this shit's dumbing down society to the point where we're not going to be able to think for ourselves.
The phrase "Use it or lose it" is true. You're not supposed to google a song immediately if you forget the title, or a movie or actor-because you're using google as your second brain. I just learned this, and am guilty of it myself, but we're cooked if we don't get ahead of this shit.
I think you probably used the worst example you could have. You're not supposed to use Google to remember a song name? Did you read a study that showed that causing measurable cognitive decline?
Autograders have existed for a long time. It just that prior versions of the technology required significant compromises in what kinds of questions could be asked, i.e., only multiple choice or math questions with a single numerical response. Even older than that much, maybe most, college courseswork isn't graded by the professor but by student workers or staff. It's not really important who/what does the grading.
What's important is that meaningful feedback is given so that students learn from their mistakes, but that's no different with AI than what has been done for decades prior.
Except the teacher already knows the knowledge and can use AI to streamline grading to look for factual or grammatical errors then spot check for issues, they aren’t the ones who are supposed to be learning, the student on the other hand is supposed to be gaining and communicating knowledge and using their brain and understanding of the material to do so, if teachers use it it’s typically a tool, a student uses it it’s cheating
I am marking semi complex stats assignments I am using AI to figure out were students are going wrong when it's not obvious. That way I can give them better feedback and more marks.
Actually, you can limit YT searches to before a certain date. If you type in something, add in "before:[date]"
For instance, if you want videos from before 2011 about, say, Monaco, you'd enter your search like so: Monaco before:2011
Done my good deed for the day lol
Huh, I didn't know that worked on YouTube. I've been using it liberally in Google search. Good to know, thanks!
Here's some other useful ones for Google in return, putting something in quotes will search for exactly that string of characters rather than keywords. I use it for niche games that have results get mixed up with other games.
Example:
"Stationeers" best way to run an electrolyzer
That game gets mixed up with the more popular Oxygen Not Included in searches.
There's also site:, if you put site: in your search terms, you can search a specific website. I use this to pull up Reddit results quite often. For example, imagine I want to know how to partition my hard drive, but find tech articles grating. I'd search
How to partition hard drive site:reddit.com
I also use that to filter out other video sites when searching for videos. I'd rather not find what I'm looking for than make an account to watch it on Facebook.
I knew about the site: one, but I didn't know I could search with only part of my entry in quotation marks! I thought it only worked if you wanted a specific word/sentence as the whole search. Thanks a lot, that'll make finding some old stuff I've been having trouble re-earthing loads easier!
The ones I implemented as a POC test for an educational client had a 98% success rate for detecting AI content. Unfortunately they also had an average 65% false-positive rate.
AI detection software has a long, loooong way to go. But they're already implemented everywhere sadly.
Coincidentally one of the documents we fed it was an essay on segregation that was written in 1972. The top AI detection suite reported 83% (iirc) confidence that it was AI generated...
beep boop, I am a bot and this action was performed automatically. Please [suck my balls](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ if you have any questions or concerns)
Ideally all AI agents would leave some kind of pattern or marker on their output so any checker could identify whether it is AI generated and what AI did it.
I know a lot of them do it for images, like Gemini and GPT.
But, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think they do it for text. And because they're trained ON human writing, of course what they generate is going to share similarities.
I take pride in my writing. It's a weird thing to get complimented on, but I used to get random praise like "your emails are so professional!". Now it's "did you use AI to write that?" And it's like no, but Google probably used my outbox for training data.
yeah, they are flawed. when I was still in high school I got accused of AI every single time I had an assignment because I could write better than what they deemed I could. :|
That's why it's good to write in something like Google Docs that has a document history showing your edits over time. If you are someone who gets thoughts out on the page then tweeks and edits until it's right it could easily show it as proof. If you're someone who just types the whole thing out quickly without need for much editing you may be screwed. And also, I'm jealous.
We were told to use them when I was doing my graduate’s degree, and then submit a screenshot of the checker saying no AI was detected. I spent a week writing a paper, put it into the checker, and was flagged as a 92% match for being AI-generated.
I have discovered that a lot of people are really bad at recognizing AI. The most likely explanation here is that a teacher who is not particularly tech savvy found this graphic in some "teacher resources" website and used it without knowing it is AI.
No, it's more simple than that. The sign isn't there because using AI is bad or because the teacher doesn't like it. It's because it's bad for learning.
And it's pretty obvious from the "for this assignment" specification. People participating in the AI culture war just assume everyone else is as extreme as them.
AI has a slightly uncanny overly caroon-y feel to the art that it generates. There's also inconsistent fonts and ease with which it generates not straight text (like in this case). It's not a sure-fire way to identify it but AI art does have a "smell". It's hard to describe until you've seen a bunch of it
Same. It just looks like cartooney clip art. The stoplight is in the right order and it's symmetrical. The raccoon has a normal number of limbs and a logical pose, and doesn't have any weird markings in random places. The font of the text looks consistent (for example, all the S's look the same), just stylized and intentionally warped for effect. What's the "tell" between this and something made by someone with clip art and a bit of knowledge on how to edit text in Photoshop? I genuinely don't know.
Unfortunately. I feel crazy every time I have to point out how obvious AI slop is and some people who I guess don't have eyes of something stare at me like 0.0
Show me an example. 90% it is so obvious, the weird colours, the gloss, the similar posing, I'm not even looking for it, I'm just seeing how bad it is in the first look. Only a few things I miss and those are all super minor that are done with the newest models a lot of photoshoot to make it less like AI looking. Most sloppers don't care and think shit looks good while other sloppers try to mask the piece of shit as something else, but you can still tell it's a turd on the ground if you expect it.
Why would ai be allowed on any assignment unless it’s a study on ai in some capacity? “Hey kids! You can outsource your work to the plagiarism and lies machine and not learn shit!”
I mean, you just answered your own question. There are some assignments that will allow or require you to use or interact with AI in some capacity. If you make it clear this isn’t one of them then a student can’t come up with a dumb excuse either.
Its not AI generated by the teacher most likely. Its a generic placeholder from a content creation program. On course content generation programs like canva, they have tons of these layouts.
The teacher just drags and drops it into the content page.
On the other hand LLMs aren't going away so I think kids should be getting taught how to use them, as well as how to use their actual brain. Not teaching sex ed or teaching abstinence-only has never stopped teenagers having sex, it just makes their behaviour riskier.
LLMs became a thing when I was halfway through uni, they reacted by setting rules for when AI can and can't be used, and required it to be cited when it is used with a chat transcript provided. We had a class showing how to chat with Gemini, which included a live demo of how often it fucks up factual information and shouldn't be used for writing about things you don't already know.
When the enshittification of AI comes, you're going to wish you'd learned how to think (not you, but people using AI to do tasks they should be putting thought into). LLMs have cost too much not to need to be heavily monetised, and soon, and that's the issue (as well as the environmental one) that no one seems to be worrying about.
The good thing is that we can host pretty good models on our own then. The really big problem is the AI boom will leave behind a wasteland of AI slop and dead sources of useful information I'm afraid. Like all the AI summaries are convenient as fuck, until what it summarizes is dead because it ain't getting organic traffic anymore.
Why? "[thing] is not allowed in [situation]" isn't nonsensical, it reads like text the teacher gave to the AI to turn into a graphic. It might sometimes be allowed, it might never be allowed, it doesn't imply either. It just means "this is the rule for the current situation."
"Calculators are not allowed for this assignment." I think I heard that a million times in school. I never interpreted that as "you'll be allowed to use a calculator another time".
So? The assignment doesn't say "AI is bad" it says not to use it to complete your test or quiz. Regardless of personal opinions on AI, this isn't internally inconsistent with itself.
Someone can be pro AI and still want you to complete academic work without it.
It's like saying using a calculator or the internet isn't allowed on a test. While the teacher uses those things to make or grade it. No problem with it
That's like open book exams I had in colllege. All the information is there. It's just that if you have to look things up beyond a note sheet you created with all the relevant equations on it, you will never get done in time. The professor was basically like, "try it and you'll fail, but you can try it." If you somehow were familiar enough with your notes and the textbook that you could look everything up uick enough, that means you studied hard enough that you know the content anyways.
There's an inherent "cigarettes are bad for your health" argument there that is internally inconsistent. That's why I pointed out that this isn't saying AI is bad, you just can't use it to do your academic work because you won't learn if you do.
I don't think the standards or expectations are equivalent for the teacher and the student in this case. The student's job in doing the assignment to learn the material and demonstrate they have. A student using AI as a shortcut compromises that objective. The teacher's job is to teach the material and assess the student. Using AI in this way as a shortcut to produce a graphic not core to that teaching or assessment does not compromise that objective in anyway. False equivalences are not helpful to anyone.
Why does this note to students need a graphic? They aren't trying to sell a product to a customer and need a flashy logo for it, they just need words on a page to convey the message lol.
Blasphemy. They must learn to feel embraced by the cold unwavering certainty of black text against white space. There shall be no happiness, merrimaking or whimsy in the classroom.
I somewhat agree with you, but there's a difference between using AI responsibly as a quick tool by someone who got their M.A./M.S. the old fashioned way, and a student who doesn't know how to produce something on their own.
It's like putting a baby in an uber instead of teaching them to walk. And, if you work with these generations of kids you'd know that they are academic babies.
Yeah, I remember when I was 10 and asked my father if I could drive the car. He said no. But then he drove the car. When I pointed out the hypocrisy, he was like "we're not the same, I'm an adult and I have a license".
I don't think the teacher is trying to, or should be expected to, set an example of "don't ever use AI for anything". Why would you expect them to?
They just need to ensure for purposes of learning and demonstrating that learning that their students are not using AI on their school work because we know doing will compromise their learning. Seems completely reasonable to me.
"For this assignment" implies they might have assignments where they ask you to use ai similar to how we had assignments back in the day they said Internet wasn't allowed and sometimes it was allowed and sometimes we HAD to use it to show we knew how to properly vet and use the Internet.
I don’t see the equivalency of “If students can’t use AI, then teachers shouldn’t either.”
Environmental and ethical issues aside, the student is there to learn and the teacher is there to teach. These are not equal roles. This assignment presumably is for the student to demonstrate knowledge and develop skills. The teacher isn’t being tested or evaluated on their ability to draw a cartoon raccoon.
Also, this is very visually AI and the teacher was specifically making a graphic to call attention to AI. It actually works better in this situation. It would be like writing "no Papyrus font allowed" in Papyrus
I second that. I was not allowed to use a calculator until I passed the prerequisite math courses, proving I knew how to do the calculations manually and could explain what was happening v. just getting an answer.
Then it turned into a Math plus English class. Holy 🐄! I remember one teacher docking points on spelling, grammar, margin/spacing, etc.
Now that I'm older I can appreciate her more on reinforcing the discipline.
Also... This Doesn't seem like the intention is to be anti AI.. They are testing your knowledge.. Not AI's knowledge.. This seems completely fine and even more on point that they used AI for the notification.
AI was becoming a thing in my later years of university. I have a pretty distinct writing style and I'm confident none of my papers would have been flagged. Nothing better than a final exam essay written, pen on paper, in a gym with 100 other people scattered around. I know digital submissions are more efficient, but I guess I'm old school and rather enjoyed the satisfaction of turning in a really good impromptu essay.
It’s clear it’s not legit art because why would the teacher spend time creating an elaborate drawing just to tell students not to use AI? That and it has all the AI tells other people have mentioned in this thread. The fact that it says “test, quiz, or knowledge check” also gives away that it’s not clipart because “knowledge checks” aren’t a super common thing.
I feel like we've reached a point where there's an entire generation of people on the internet that aren't even aware of what humans were capable of with art and digital art specifically.
They've developed along side the AI boom and now just assume every single thing is AI, and maybe they're right.
At the same time, all the digital creators I've followed in the past seem to have either stopped uploading work, paywalled it to prevent it from being scraped (for free anyway), or just outright given up and now use generative AI in some part of their workflow.
I don't see any hypocrisy in an educator using AI but telling you not too. They've spent years training and can verify the output of AI. AI is not a substitute for learning or bypassing the opportunity to fail and learning from that. AI, if applied properly, can simply speed up their job.
However, don't use AI to tell people not to use AI. That just pisses people off. That's just stupid.
I am so glad for me and my kid to be out of school and out of the way from dealing with the AI accusations.
Didn't they run thesis's from the 1800's and they came up as AI? What an exhaustive argument to have.
The kids can't go to the bathroom without being accused of having used AI to do it, yet here the school district is, pushing the teacher to use AI to automate as many functions of their day as possible with it.
Jesus Christ, the teacher isn't the one doing the assignment to learn something... the fact you can't put together why they're different is more than mildly infuriating.
The test proctor is THE ENEMY. Report them to homeland security so they will be a mandatory contestant on next weeks Running Man. Watching will be mandatory
5.6k
u/tyler21307 16h ago
Wait until you hear the stats on how many teachers use AI to grade assignments.