• xantoxis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Is it? If ChatGPT wrote your paper, why would citations of the work of Frankie Hawkes raise any red flags unless you happened to see this specific tweet? You’d just see ChatGPT filled in some research by someone you hadn’t heard of. Whatever, turn it in. Proofreading anything you turn in is obviously a good idea, but it’s not going to reveal that you fell into a trap here.

      If you went so far as to learn who Frankie Hawkes is supposed to be, you’d probably find out he’s irrelevant to this course of study and doesn’t have any citeable works on the subject. But then, if you were doing that work, you aren’t using ChatGPT in the first place. And that goes well beyond “proofreading”.

      • And009@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 hours ago

        This should be okay to do. Understanding and being able to process information is foundational

    • yamanii@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      6 hours ago

      There are professional cheaters and there are lazy ones, this is gonna get the lazy ones.

      • MalditoBarbudo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I wouldn’t call “professional cheaters” to the students that carefully proofread the output. People using chatgpt and proofreading content and bibliography later are using it as a tool, like any other (Wikipedia, related papers…), so they are not cheating. This hack is intended for the real cheaters, the ones that feed chatgpt with the assignment and return whatever hallucination it gives to you without checking anything else.