I had both, over a decade ago in high school. Plagiarism detection is the original AI detection, although they usually told you specifically what you were accused of stealing from. A computer-based English course I took over the summer used automated grading to decide if what you wrote was good enough (IIRC they did have a human look over it at some point).
> But not in cheating or grades, etc. Spam filters are completely different from this.
Really? A spammer is trying to ace a test where my attention is the prize. I don't really see a huge difference between a student/diploma and a spammer/my attention.
Education tech companies have been playing with ML and similar tech that is "AI adjacent" for decades. If you went to school in the US any time after computers entered the class room, you probably had some exposure to a machine generated/scored test. That data was used to tailor lessons to pupil interest/goals/state curricula. Good software also gave instructor feedback about where each student/cohort is struggling or not.
LLMs are just an evolution of tech that's been pretty well integrated into academic life for a while now. Was anything in academia prepared for this evolution? No. But banning it outright isn't going to work
> I don't really see a huge difference between a student/diploma and a spammer/my attention.
You don't see a difference between potentially ruining a students future due to grading done by an opaque ai system and you clicking on a spam email? That's preposterous.
