So true,

I recently watched a video in which this concern was raised and I agree with the point that the speaker quoted "The user should understand that these AIs are to complement humans and they cannot replace an individual's knowledge and wisdom". Students should understand the importance of the education system and the use of resources available to them.

However, easy access to the internet allows students to misuse this technology, which may affect their knowledge gain adversely.

I believe that if it is good to teach students to interact in social networks, to find relevant researchers and to build connections to improve their skills, then in the development of the ability to search the habit of reading is encouraged, be it digital or printed. . What leads me to suggest that perhaps what should not have been done was to give them the opportunity to copy and see, before the other class, what their classmates' questions and answers were. Well, it could have happened, perhaps, that some had doubts or were not clear about where or where, to direct their investigation and simply to avoid being left as suspended or on a lesser scale than their peers, they simply copied and pasted. It often happens and is common in all classes. Suggestion, do a similar experiment, but within the same class, don't give him a chance to copy and pay. Gather them in work teams, according to their affinities, within the same class, let each team choose their leaders and they are the ones who expose what their true investigative interests are.

There is so much just **** today.

This is where researchers are great and creative, anything that they think is interesting and new, must be taken and copied

I agree your point. AI tools can be used. Assuming the whole credit on that is not ethical.

Gaining score using Chat GPT like tools is similar to deceiving ourselves. Learning takes a back seat.

Like any other tool that has existed, AI can be used and abused. Educators cannot prohibit the use of AI but should educate learners on how to leverage this tool while maintaining academic integrity and promoting research curiosity. This might mean that educators need to go back to the essence of research, the individuality of critical rhetoric, the building blocks of theory and interpretation of these theories, etc. For example, AI could be used as a guide to structure thought, a framework, or to possibly find relevant resources in less time. However, AI will never replace human rationale and research for multiple obvious reasons.

I agree with what they say. Students must understand that it is unethical and contributes nothing to the learning in their research fields. But, in addition, they must become aware that they are learning something very dangerous, which is delegating to the AI, allowing themselves to be replaced by AI, "controlled" by it. In my opinion we should be very rigorous with this at all educational levels and very creative to make it difficult to misuse AI tools.

Already Kant, in one of the founding texts of our culture -What is Enlightenment?-, warned us that laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a part of humanity feel comfortable in a permanent state of ‘minority of reason’. It is so comfortable to be dependent! If I have ChatGPT at my disposal, I don't need to bother. But if that minority of reason was guilty in the eighteenth century, it is equally so now and much more dangerous. The risk of AI is that we allow intelligent systems to set themselves up as our guardians. Education would fulfil its emancipatory function if we were able to train our students in the proper use of these tools. Sapere aude!

Quote: "What do these "Researchers" gain with this? some RG score points?"

They gain the habit of trusting non-formal sources that never refer to formal publications, which condemns them to mediocrity and to never produce well grounded valuable research. They unknowingly forfeit their "researcher" status.

Like any other tool that has existed, AI can be used and abused. Educators cannot prohibit the use of AI but should educate learners on how to leverage this tool while maintaining academic integrity and promoting research curiosity. This might mean that educators need to go back to the essence of research, the individuality of critical rhetoric, the building blocks of theory and interpretation of these theories, etc. For example, AI could be used as a guide to structure thought, a framework, or to possibly find relevant resources in less time. However, AI will never replace human rationale and research for multiple obvious reasons.I agree with what they say. Students must understand that it is unethical and contributes nothing to the learning in their research fields. But, in addition, they must become aware that they are learning something very dangerous, which is delegating to the AI, allowing themselves to be replaced by AI, "controlled" by it. In my opinion we should be very rigorous with this at all educational levels and very creative to make it difficult to misuse AI tools.

Already Kant, in one of the founding texts of our culture -What is Enlightenment?-, warned us that laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a part of humanity feel comfortable in a permanent state of ‘minority of reason’. It is so comfortable to be dependent! If I have ChatGPT at my disposal, I don't need to bother. But if that minority of reason was guilty in the eighteenth century, it is equally so now and much more dangerous. The risk of AI is that we allow intelligent systems to set themselves up as our guardians. Education would fulfil its emancipatory function if we were able to train our students in the proper use of these tools

Dear Research Gate community,

I found an interesting LinkedIn feed related to use of ChatGBT. The link for the same is as follows-

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7063556310490853376/

It shows how to use ChatGBT in an effective manner.

Nothing wrong with using AI for anything. However, the person using that AI should have critical thinking to know if the generated text is correct or not.

Also, I think it is changing to test students based on oral presentations rather than text-based tests in the coming years.

I wish this AI makes people more intelligent rather than dumb. However, it's the individual responsibility to think about how he/she wants to utilize it.

https://www.turnitin.com/resources/academic-integrity-in-the-age-of-AI

Sharing useful resources related to the discussion.