[FloorEgg]

Re-reading my original reply and your response and I think we had a misunderstanding. I never intended to make you feel assured with my post. I was trying to communicate that the features the product provides could help you feel assured that the student actually completed the work themselves and if they used AI to help, you can see exactly how. (And that they appropriately paraphrased, etc)

The whole point of the product is to give professors more flexibility in the kind of assignments they use (and even allowing students to use LLMs in a controlled way and be evaluated in how they use them) while ensuring academic integrity.

For example allowing students to use LLMs as research assistants and even to help them consider and structure ideas, while ensuring the student paraphrases everything sufficiently to prove they actually understand it and can put it in their own words.

To be clear I understand and respect your desire to protect the integrity of the diplomas and credentials you are giving out (especially in contrast to the so many who let cheating run rampatnt), but at some point you may want to be able to accurately evaluate how students use industry-standard tools. (like when calculators were first introduced).

So sure, be skeptical, but maybe be careful about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[oerdier]

I appreciate your taking the time to elaborate. I see you've responded to all comments on your original comment and remained civil despite people's negative sentiment. There are too few places on the internet left where such civility remains, and I thank you for contributing.

I would not feel assured of students actually completing the work themselves with _only_ something like examind.io as an extra measure. For it to be used in their own time, they would use it on their own hardware. As user viraptor pointed out, whenever there's anti-cheat software, someone is going to create targeted anti-anti-cheat software. That's what I meant by arms race.

For me to feel assured of students not fooling the anti-cheat software, for their input device they would have to use hardware controlled by me. It's not feasible to let them use hardware controlled by me in their own time.

I can see how a tool such as examind.io might help in accurately evaluating how students use other tools on a computer. For that they could use hardware controlled by me, during a test.