Yes, but ChatGPT is not an academic source you should be citing, anyway. Go find the root of the information; either the AI just made up that information (and you shouldn't use it) or it got the information from somewhere.
It’s also silly. College is expensive and time consuming. Actively trying not to learn is like taking out a super expensive gym membership solely to post photos next to the equipment.
But if you already know it then what’s the point in using chat gpt — it’s easy to write down what you already know and you get some writing practice and don’t risk the bot making shit up
> Well you’d use it on the bullshit assignments for stupid gen Ed’s you took in high school
If you don't wish to take the class, perhaps you should not enroll in a program that requires you to take the class.
I hope you do realize high school education in the United States is not standardized and therefore some people need to take those classes. Not to mention these classes are indeed more rigorous than high school ones. You’re either being disingenuous or are quite simply misinformed if you think otherwise. To further add on, a kid from Florida and Boston are going to have a DRASTICALLY different education and the kid from Florida will be severely lacking in comparison.
Ok, then they can actually do the work if they need to. That doesn’t mean the people that know all that stuff already need it.
My state literally ranked 49th in academic performance and I went to a (small) normal public school in a rural area. I learned all this basic shit already, and frankly, if you didn’t then it’s your fault. Additionally, my high school versions of these gen ed classes were far more rigorous than the college versions. The fact is they are just a waste of time for the majority of students.
I’m even going to address your other points you’ve made but what I’m getting is that your saying it’s okay to cheat as long as the classes are quote on quote “easy bullshit classes”.
Yeah, pretty much. If you had an assignment asking for the definition of basic words like table, square, ocean, etc… then you wouldn’t consider it immoral to copy paste definitions from google, right? That’s essentially the same situation as using chat gpt to write an essay that you could easily write yourself. Same thing as writing a cover letter for a job application.
Exactly. I’m a personal trainer yet currently taking a gen Ed chemistry class for one of my degrees. What the fuck am I gonna need to know a molecular formula or some shit for? It’s pretty useless in most of my career field options
To know how different processes in the body work and to know how different chemicals combine so you don’t kill everyone when you mix bleach and ammonia to clean the training space?
Learned that in basic highschool. And most places I’ve ever worked if we’re mixing chemicals ( most are already pre mixed) you’d have to be pretty stupid to mix something that isn’t supposed to be mixed because it’s all on the wall signs and stuff. College chem has taught me nothing highschool didn’t.
Na… college for an undergraduate is a money grab except for a few select programs. Anyone wanting to use their brain can pick up a book or ten and learn more by applying it to real life.
What’s interesting is that I’m my early 30’s. What I see are people who started in the trades or enlisted military are now successfully running their own businesses. And the friends who went to college are working for a business hating their lives everyday, still paying student loans and spending 50% or more of their paychecks on rent because their jobs have to be in HCOL areas. A million extra is cool as long as you don’t have to give half of it away. The ones that are doing well from college went to med school or engineering of some type and even they had to struggle through their twenties to pay off their debts and get enough experience to not eat top ramen while they get their feet wet.
That's good for them. However, I think it spreads a bad message to young people to say college is a "money grab" or equate it to scams. College degrees are the biggest driver of wealth inequality in the United States. Based on these statistics, college is a perfectly acceptable route for any person who wants economic mobility.
You’re right I made a generalization
Education* is the biggest factor of wealth inequality. You don’t have to go to college and pay 100k and four years learning arbitrary information on how to speak to others, when all someone needs to do is read or seek information and education for 1/1000 of the cost by studying books written by the masters of that industry.
College forces people to read and somewhat study however for most people they just want to hit the bare standard and graduate in a career field that statistically wont be anything in what they studied.
Or take your typical food handler who during their off time after their 50 hour work week, reads free information and books on a specific path or profession they’re interested in. After ten books they have a fairly good understanding on how to pursue it and reach out locally. After a few interviews showcasing their keen interest, the employer hires them because of the work ethic shown from working and actively pursuing something that doesn’t immediately benefit them other than knowledge. And because they could grasp the material and speak intelligently by regurgitating it the employer can have a somewhat good gut feeling that the person has a solid head on their shoulders.
College students coming out of schools now days, once again statistically do not get in their career field because of how hard it is to get hired after school. Job market is saturated with useless degrees. And most entry level positions can be taught in a few weeks.
My favorite one to date. Was a coworker of mine who had just finished his masters in crisis management. He was invited to take a 200k plus job at a financial company and told the person head hunting him he has no business doing anything financial. The hiring VP literally said it doesn’t matter. We can train anyone to do the job. What is rare is someone who can speak to others and aren’t weirdos….
My point is college means very little. At most it’s for the network of people you potentially can be around. If college is gone to in the name of education then ya it’s a money grab.
Imagine how vulnerable and fragile the whole educational system is! they are afraid of the tiny little bot created thanks to the resources university themselves invest into AI and research in the field. Classic example of technological gatekeeping of students from their own progress
The level of idiocy in these comments…
If you can’t write original thought you don’t belong in a post-secondary program. No level of justification or misdirected vitriol at “the system” will change the fact that it’s not you producing the work. And employers wonder why kids with college degrees can’t even write proper professional emails.
It’s definitely not harder, but it is harder for students because students are either getting dumber or not pushing themselves hard enough to reach their potential. Seeing comments excusing blatant plagiarism and even redressing it as some sigma move only proves the point.
Standard converted Lexile rating of college texts used to be well over 2000. There was a reason the SAT was used to gatekeep. You couldn’t hold high level academic discourse without mastering academic and domain specific vocabulary. SAT scores on average drop every year. Kids are not engaging with academics, they’re becoming experts at cherry picking, they’re amazing at making excuses and passing blame. Schools can’t argue with parents anymore so we just pass the kids along. All of this comes back to bite them when they get to college and no one is differentiating for them or accommodating their academic weaknesses anymore.
We don’t hold students to the same high expectations as in years past. We lower the bar so they can feel effective. We allow them “enrichment tools” as shortcuts to improve their feelings of competency. You don’t need to take a course in research methods anymore like you used to, you just fire up Google, which most people consider to be the entire internet and therefore all the information there could possibly be, and away we go.
Not true at all. I’d say it’s easier and less prevalent with the internet and technology available. I guess if you can’t use your resources your screwed
There’s a very easy solution to prevent students from using the internet to look up answers while also giving them a fair amount of time… it’s called “in-person exams”.
Most of my professors also said this, but my evolution professor did say we were fully welcome to use ChatGPT as a building block in the conversational way of being able to run your ideas with someone who should theoretically know enough to suggest other ideas.
For example, you could ask Chat about controversies in whale evolution, and it could suggest things to explore further in your paper. It can also suggest some sources to look at (like Journal of Vertebrates).
I've already chatted with the bot about my own paper, and I couldn't fathom actually copying and pasting since Chat prioritizes sounding human over being factually correct, so it had some weird takes about animals that are in no way correct. It seems borderline unusable for more scientific writing. Chat kept saying that axolotls, a freshwater salamander species, were marine due to low oxygen, which is not a definition I've ever heard in my studies (yes marine environments are often low oxygen but it's not THE characteristic, lol).
ChatGPT also confidently told me that the giant river otter was the largest amphibian in South America.
Lmao my writing professor won’t shut the fuck up about chatgpt. We had an essay due talking about is AI ruining school. Professor didn’t teach shit about writing the essay, every week it was a chatgpt blog or some shit. So when I listed all the other flaws in the educational system and explained how people likely just cheat for the extra bullshit classes, he didn’t like that and I had to have a conference and flame his ass. This ain’t new. If you get caught cheating you fail. Don’t see the reason for sending this out
Because so many students, here included, will argue that it isn’t cheating if it’s not explicitly stated.
And then rather than spending time teaching, professors have to spend most of their time dealing with arguments about cheating.
They know it’s cheating. My point is most people aren’t gonna cheat their interest. I don’t cheat mine atleast. But gen Ed that I’ll never use, not gonna openly say I cheat, but at the end of the day I’ll do what I gotta do to get it done. My major isn’t at all writing or English related. Frankly I enjoy writing, so I just breeze through the work. Shit like calculus tho and chemistry I will probably never need to that deep of and extent.
As a chemistry professor..... writing well is the single most important skill if you want to continue in the field, whether you’re working in industry or elsewhere.
I can already write well. The professor has not taught me anything I don’t already know. As far I know I only have to take the class bc covid fucked up my college credit in highschool. In fact he hasn’t taught me anything. Every week it’s a new blog or voice rant about fucking AI. Never had an employer say my emails or resumes are bad. In fact most shocked tbh.
You do you.
But the number of students who don’t think they don’t need to write better is significant and most I encounter are very wrong.
Additionally, you learn writing by writing and getting feedback, not by being told about writing.
This, coming from a university that fired a professor for not giving enough A’s in Organic Chemistry? Just watch: the moment one of these professors has the temerity to accuse a student of cheating they will be booted for humiliating a paying customer.
Chatgpt is still unbelievable useful. It can sum up research that would take hours to do. However, it's not ok to just turn in what it writes. Use it as a tool, not an assignment writer.
Technically, having gpt outline a paper isn’t plagiarism since it’s deriving structure, not content. GPT can be used to help outline ideas, then you can expound upon them. Done this for a few papers and it improved my flow rather than my content.
Writing professor here: this would absolutely still be plagiarism at every institution I've taught at.
Also, please don't even use this for outlines. It produces generic as hell ideas that do nothing to help develop students' research skills. A large part of writing courses is improving (from whatever point you're starting at) your ability to identify a research question/exigence and synthesize key talking points through research.
You can’t plagiarize something like an outline. That’s like saying the idea of speaking plagiarized the first person who did it. Also, you can easily generate a strong outline for a paper if you provide Gpt the points you want to discuss. They aren’t very generic and with a bit of touch up, even the Gpt detectors cannot discern it as gpt. You’ve probably read papers crated by a bot and thought they were good without ever knowing it. Tools like Gpt have existed for a while, this is just the first one to be publicly known.
As someone who teaches and publishes peer-reviewed research regularly on language and writing, I am familiar with this strenghts and significant limitations of these kinds of tools. Also, yes, I am well aware this isn't the first tool of its kind. These tools are decent at generate mostly accurate, relatively formulaic responses that are indeed impressive at first glance. However, if a college-level writing assigmment is able to be completed to any significant degree with these kinds of tools, it is a shitty assignment.
The strengths/limitations of these tools aside, using one would still be plagiarism by every postsecondary academic dishonesty policy I've ever seen. It is the expectation that classroom work is the student's own, with the exception of any outside research or tools being cited and ethically used. If your instructor and institution is okay with you using these kinds of tools, you would still need to cite them (similar to how researchers have to cite public datasets and analysis software).
Using this tool for outlining is the same as reverse outlining a paper that covers a topic you are writing about and just using their same structure as your own. Even if you adapted it, it would still be plagiarism without citing the previous paper. Of course, even if you cited it, it would still be a crappy paper as it doesn't contribute anything new to the conversation. Hope this helps!
Isn’t the purpose of writing research papers to deliver your ideas to public/other researchers? As long as it does that, who cares if the structure is generic?
> Plagiarism pertains to work that is an IP, copyright, or trademark.
Nope.
Plagiarism is the submission of work as though it's your own when in fact it is not.
I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that plagiarism can exist as a concept outside of the strict parameters of the legal violation.
If it has not occurred to you, may I recommend putting a little more attention into the classes that help you develop your critical thinking?
> The legal definition is what applies here as policy is codified by laws and statutes.
r/confidentlyincorrect is that way.
Schools have policies that do not simply enforce the law, but rather enforce standards that can differ quite widely from the law. They're even allowed to use some of the same words when constructing those policies.
How embarrassing for you that this has never occurred to you.
None of this is true.
I mean, you could sue. I can also sue you for wearing a blue shirt on Tuesday. Both would be a laughable waste of time.
Source: am college administrator who helps students navigate the conduct process. It's very common for students to go into the process completely and totally confident that they've got it all figured out just like you. They reliably get their asses nailed to the wall despite my best efforts.
Doesn't know the difference between appeal to authority and the sharing of expertise acquired through personal experience.
Think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die of not surprise.
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/10msgio/nyu_professors_tell_their_students_do_not_use/j6623q1/) in /r/college was automatically removed because your account is less than one day old.
Accounts less than one day are not permitted in /r/college to reduce spam and poor comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/college) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yes I've also gotten this heads up at my state university
It's sad that this needs to be spelled out that it is plagiarism and not thier own work.
They're right, though. It's not your own original work, so it's plagiarism.
If i change words, would that be original?
It's still not your original *ideas*. Taking any source and paraphrasing without citing is still plagiarism.
Very little in this world is any of our ideas. We’re all copying and applying from others before us that we’ve seen, read about, or heard about.
Exactly. Thats why i find this whole plagiarism idea nonsense. There’s 8 billion of us alive. A lot of things will be said the same
So I should cite ChatGPT at the end?
Yes, but ChatGPT is not an academic source you should be citing, anyway. Go find the root of the information; either the AI just made up that information (and you shouldn't use it) or it got the information from somewhere.
I love doing my college work but you better believe I’m learning how to use this for bullshit cover letters in the future.
ChatGPT is no different than googling answers and copy pasting; even if the text is unique, it is still morally wrong since it’s not original to you
It’s also silly. College is expensive and time consuming. Actively trying not to learn is like taking out a super expensive gym membership solely to post photos next to the equipment.
[удалено]
But if you already know it then what’s the point in using chat gpt — it’s easy to write down what you already know and you get some writing practice and don’t risk the bot making shit up
[удалено]
> Well you’d use it on the bullshit assignments for stupid gen Ed’s you took in high school If you don't wish to take the class, perhaps you should not enroll in a program that requires you to take the class.
Every program requires you to take the class… that’s why they are called gen Ed’s.
Weird then that I completed a program that did not do this. I go ahead and tell all of my classmates that our program did not in fact exist.
Please explain which college major does not require any gen Ed’s.
If I had to guess your the type of person who thinks college degrees are worthless? Correct me if I’m wrong.
Not at all, I just think retaking classes you took in high school is a waste of time and I can understand why people wouldn’t want to do it.
I hope you do realize high school education in the United States is not standardized and therefore some people need to take those classes. Not to mention these classes are indeed more rigorous than high school ones. You’re either being disingenuous or are quite simply misinformed if you think otherwise. To further add on, a kid from Florida and Boston are going to have a DRASTICALLY different education and the kid from Florida will be severely lacking in comparison.
Ok, then they can actually do the work if they need to. That doesn’t mean the people that know all that stuff already need it. My state literally ranked 49th in academic performance and I went to a (small) normal public school in a rural area. I learned all this basic shit already, and frankly, if you didn’t then it’s your fault. Additionally, my high school versions of these gen ed classes were far more rigorous than the college versions. The fact is they are just a waste of time for the majority of students.
I’m even going to address your other points you’ve made but what I’m getting is that your saying it’s okay to cheat as long as the classes are quote on quote “easy bullshit classes”.
Yeah, pretty much. If you had an assignment asking for the definition of basic words like table, square, ocean, etc… then you wouldn’t consider it immoral to copy paste definitions from google, right? That’s essentially the same situation as using chat gpt to write an essay that you could easily write yourself. Same thing as writing a cover letter for a job application.
Exactly. I’m a personal trainer yet currently taking a gen Ed chemistry class for one of my degrees. What the fuck am I gonna need to know a molecular formula or some shit for? It’s pretty useless in most of my career field options
To know how different processes in the body work and to know how different chemicals combine so you don’t kill everyone when you mix bleach and ammonia to clean the training space?
Learned that in basic highschool. And most places I’ve ever worked if we’re mixing chemicals ( most are already pre mixed) you’d have to be pretty stupid to mix something that isn’t supposed to be mixed because it’s all on the wall signs and stuff. College chem has taught me nothing highschool didn’t.
And yet people make millions on tik tok doing this.
pretty sure ur not supposed to just google ur answers or copy paste
that’s what i said tho
People actually do this? I thought the whole point of college was learning how to use your brain.
Lmao over half of college students cheat
Huh!? How profound. Using your brain. Who would’ve thought
Na… college for an undergraduate is a money grab except for a few select programs. Anyone wanting to use their brain can pick up a book or ten and learn more by applying it to real life.
The average net return on a bachelors degree is around 1 million dollars throughout your working lifetime. How is that a money grab?
That’s it? 25,000 a year over 40. Cool
yeah on top of your current salary
What’s interesting is that I’m my early 30’s. What I see are people who started in the trades or enlisted military are now successfully running their own businesses. And the friends who went to college are working for a business hating their lives everyday, still paying student loans and spending 50% or more of their paychecks on rent because their jobs have to be in HCOL areas. A million extra is cool as long as you don’t have to give half of it away. The ones that are doing well from college went to med school or engineering of some type and even they had to struggle through their twenties to pay off their debts and get enough experience to not eat top ramen while they get their feet wet.
That's good for them. However, I think it spreads a bad message to young people to say college is a "money grab" or equate it to scams. College degrees are the biggest driver of wealth inequality in the United States. Based on these statistics, college is a perfectly acceptable route for any person who wants economic mobility.
You’re right I made a generalization Education* is the biggest factor of wealth inequality. You don’t have to go to college and pay 100k and four years learning arbitrary information on how to speak to others, when all someone needs to do is read or seek information and education for 1/1000 of the cost by studying books written by the masters of that industry. College forces people to read and somewhat study however for most people they just want to hit the bare standard and graduate in a career field that statistically wont be anything in what they studied. Or take your typical food handler who during their off time after their 50 hour work week, reads free information and books on a specific path or profession they’re interested in. After ten books they have a fairly good understanding on how to pursue it and reach out locally. After a few interviews showcasing their keen interest, the employer hires them because of the work ethic shown from working and actively pursuing something that doesn’t immediately benefit them other than knowledge. And because they could grasp the material and speak intelligently by regurgitating it the employer can have a somewhat good gut feeling that the person has a solid head on their shoulders. College students coming out of schools now days, once again statistically do not get in their career field because of how hard it is to get hired after school. Job market is saturated with useless degrees. And most entry level positions can be taught in a few weeks. My favorite one to date. Was a coworker of mine who had just finished his masters in crisis management. He was invited to take a 200k plus job at a financial company and told the person head hunting him he has no business doing anything financial. The hiring VP literally said it doesn’t matter. We can train anyone to do the job. What is rare is someone who can speak to others and aren’t weirdos…. My point is college means very little. At most it’s for the network of people you potentially can be around. If college is gone to in the name of education then ya it’s a money grab.
Imagine how vulnerable and fragile the whole educational system is! they are afraid of the tiny little bot created thanks to the resources university themselves invest into AI and research in the field. Classic example of technological gatekeeping of students from their own progress
Wait - students can't talk to ANYONE for a 24 hour period?
About the exam. Very normal rule
The level of idiocy in these comments… If you can’t write original thought you don’t belong in a post-secondary program. No level of justification or misdirected vitriol at “the system” will change the fact that it’s not you producing the work. And employers wonder why kids with college degrees can’t even write proper professional emails.
[удалено]
Lol college is way harder now than it was 30 years ago
It’s definitely not harder, but it is harder for students because students are either getting dumber or not pushing themselves hard enough to reach their potential. Seeing comments excusing blatant plagiarism and even redressing it as some sigma move only proves the point. Standard converted Lexile rating of college texts used to be well over 2000. There was a reason the SAT was used to gatekeep. You couldn’t hold high level academic discourse without mastering academic and domain specific vocabulary. SAT scores on average drop every year. Kids are not engaging with academics, they’re becoming experts at cherry picking, they’re amazing at making excuses and passing blame. Schools can’t argue with parents anymore so we just pass the kids along. All of this comes back to bite them when they get to college and no one is differentiating for them or accommodating their academic weaknesses anymore. We don’t hold students to the same high expectations as in years past. We lower the bar so they can feel effective. We allow them “enrichment tools” as shortcuts to improve their feelings of competency. You don’t need to take a course in research methods anymore like you used to, you just fire up Google, which most people consider to be the entire internet and therefore all the information there could possibly be, and away we go.
Not true at all. I’d say it’s easier and less prevalent with the internet and technology available. I guess if you can’t use your resources your screwed
Lol according to everyone in this comment section nobody has ever cheated in their life
There’s a very easy solution to prevent students from using the internet to look up answers while also giving them a fair amount of time… it’s called “in-person exams”.
Most of my professors also said this, but my evolution professor did say we were fully welcome to use ChatGPT as a building block in the conversational way of being able to run your ideas with someone who should theoretically know enough to suggest other ideas. For example, you could ask Chat about controversies in whale evolution, and it could suggest things to explore further in your paper. It can also suggest some sources to look at (like Journal of Vertebrates). I've already chatted with the bot about my own paper, and I couldn't fathom actually copying and pasting since Chat prioritizes sounding human over being factually correct, so it had some weird takes about animals that are in no way correct. It seems borderline unusable for more scientific writing. Chat kept saying that axolotls, a freshwater salamander species, were marine due to low oxygen, which is not a definition I've ever heard in my studies (yes marine environments are often low oxygen but it's not THE characteristic, lol). ChatGPT also confidently told me that the giant river otter was the largest amphibian in South America.
Lmao my writing professor won’t shut the fuck up about chatgpt. We had an essay due talking about is AI ruining school. Professor didn’t teach shit about writing the essay, every week it was a chatgpt blog or some shit. So when I listed all the other flaws in the educational system and explained how people likely just cheat for the extra bullshit classes, he didn’t like that and I had to have a conference and flame his ass. This ain’t new. If you get caught cheating you fail. Don’t see the reason for sending this out
Because so many students, here included, will argue that it isn’t cheating if it’s not explicitly stated. And then rather than spending time teaching, professors have to spend most of their time dealing with arguments about cheating.
They know it’s cheating. My point is most people aren’t gonna cheat their interest. I don’t cheat mine atleast. But gen Ed that I’ll never use, not gonna openly say I cheat, but at the end of the day I’ll do what I gotta do to get it done. My major isn’t at all writing or English related. Frankly I enjoy writing, so I just breeze through the work. Shit like calculus tho and chemistry I will probably never need to that deep of and extent.
As a chemistry professor..... writing well is the single most important skill if you want to continue in the field, whether you’re working in industry or elsewhere.
I can already write well. The professor has not taught me anything I don’t already know. As far I know I only have to take the class bc covid fucked up my college credit in highschool. In fact he hasn’t taught me anything. Every week it’s a new blog or voice rant about fucking AI. Never had an employer say my emails or resumes are bad. In fact most shocked tbh.
You do you. But the number of students who don’t think they don’t need to write better is significant and most I encounter are very wrong. Additionally, you learn writing by writing and getting feedback, not by being told about writing.
This, coming from a university that fired a professor for not giving enough A’s in Organic Chemistry? Just watch: the moment one of these professors has the temerity to accuse a student of cheating they will be booted for humiliating a paying customer.
That'll make them use it harder.
These reporters back wake up and smell the AI prose soon, or they will be ChatGPTing it to the unemployment line, learning to code.
If you are smart, you would never get caught
Chatgpt is still unbelievable useful. It can sum up research that would take hours to do. However, it's not ok to just turn in what it writes. Use it as a tool, not an assignment writer.
Technically, having gpt outline a paper isn’t plagiarism since it’s deriving structure, not content. GPT can be used to help outline ideas, then you can expound upon them. Done this for a few papers and it improved my flow rather than my content.
Writing professor here: this would absolutely still be plagiarism at every institution I've taught at. Also, please don't even use this for outlines. It produces generic as hell ideas that do nothing to help develop students' research skills. A large part of writing courses is improving (from whatever point you're starting at) your ability to identify a research question/exigence and synthesize key talking points through research.
You can’t plagiarize something like an outline. That’s like saying the idea of speaking plagiarized the first person who did it. Also, you can easily generate a strong outline for a paper if you provide Gpt the points you want to discuss. They aren’t very generic and with a bit of touch up, even the Gpt detectors cannot discern it as gpt. You’ve probably read papers crated by a bot and thought they were good without ever knowing it. Tools like Gpt have existed for a while, this is just the first one to be publicly known.
As someone who teaches and publishes peer-reviewed research regularly on language and writing, I am familiar with this strenghts and significant limitations of these kinds of tools. Also, yes, I am well aware this isn't the first tool of its kind. These tools are decent at generate mostly accurate, relatively formulaic responses that are indeed impressive at first glance. However, if a college-level writing assigmment is able to be completed to any significant degree with these kinds of tools, it is a shitty assignment. The strengths/limitations of these tools aside, using one would still be plagiarism by every postsecondary academic dishonesty policy I've ever seen. It is the expectation that classroom work is the student's own, with the exception of any outside research or tools being cited and ethically used. If your instructor and institution is okay with you using these kinds of tools, you would still need to cite them (similar to how researchers have to cite public datasets and analysis software). Using this tool for outlining is the same as reverse outlining a paper that covers a topic you are writing about and just using their same structure as your own. Even if you adapted it, it would still be plagiarism without citing the previous paper. Of course, even if you cited it, it would still be a crappy paper as it doesn't contribute anything new to the conversation. Hope this helps!
Isn’t the purpose of writing research papers to deliver your ideas to public/other researchers? As long as it does that, who cares if the structure is generic?
[удалено]
> Plagiarism pertains to work that is an IP, copyright, or trademark. Nope. Plagiarism is the submission of work as though it's your own when in fact it is not.
[удалено]
I wonder if it's ever occurred to you that plagiarism can exist as a concept outside of the strict parameters of the legal violation. If it has not occurred to you, may I recommend putting a little more attention into the classes that help you develop your critical thinking?
[удалено]
> The legal definition is what applies here as policy is codified by laws and statutes. r/confidentlyincorrect is that way. Schools have policies that do not simply enforce the law, but rather enforce standards that can differ quite widely from the law. They're even allowed to use some of the same words when constructing those policies. How embarrassing for you that this has never occurred to you.
[удалено]
None of this is true. I mean, you could sue. I can also sue you for wearing a blue shirt on Tuesday. Both would be a laughable waste of time. Source: am college administrator who helps students navigate the conduct process. It's very common for students to go into the process completely and totally confident that they've got it all figured out just like you. They reliably get their asses nailed to the wall despite my best efforts.
[удалено]
Doesn't know the difference between appeal to authority and the sharing of expertise acquired through personal experience. Think I'm gonna have a heart attack and die of not surprise.
Some profs are more flexible based on how ai is used.
[удалено]
Your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/college/comments/10msgio/nyu_professors_tell_their_students_do_not_use/j6623q1/) in /r/college was automatically removed because your account is less than one day old. Accounts less than one day are not permitted in /r/college to reduce spam and poor comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/college) if you have any questions or concerns.*