[dot5xdev]

> I would encourage students to use all the tools available to them. Especially AI. I'd set the bar pretty high.

How would you set the bar pretty high? How would you avoid just evaluating ChatGPT, instead of the actual student?

[jillesvangurp]

Well, zero tolerance on grammar, spelling, etc, being bad obviously. I'd also insist on the thing being coherent and well structured. Both of which were huge problems when I was reviewing student papers. These are all things an LLM can help students with improving.

And of course if all papers are up to standards on that (which IMHO would be a massive improvement already from an educational point of view), you'd be looking for other criteria to judge the papers that maybe showcase things that are actually of value. Like problem solving, critical thinking, originality, etc. I'd be looking for signs of the student having a good grip on the subject matter.

Perhaps I'd do a little verbal exam. I might grill them a bit on the subject they wrote about and make sure they understand what they submitted. Somebody that did the leg work of coming up with something good and that did the research, would be able to answer questions about it and be able to discuss the key points. Ask them some questions about other work they are referencing. Etc.

I just think trying to keep students from using tools that are out there is a lost cause.