Urgent.News

What's breaking now, across thousands of outlets.

AI

Steve Hanke has 'no problem' with his students using AI to cheat — as he's an 'old fox' who easily sniffs them out

Steve Hanke, who's been teaching at Johns Hopkins for nearly 60 years, said it's "blatant when a student submission has been generated by AI."

Professor Steve Hanke of Johns Hopkins University maintains a confident stance on using artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT for cheating. The seasoned educator, with over 50 years of experience in academia, claims he possesses a remarkable ability to detect AI-generated work. Hanke describes himself as an "old fox" who can easily differentiate between a student's genuine efforts and the output of a chatbot.

His expertise lies in identifying discrepancies, such as poor writing skills or an inconsistency in knowledge, which would raise a red flag when a student submits work generated by AI. The professor, who previously served on President Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, emphasizes that today's students, even at elite universities, often lack strong writing abilities, making it relatively straightforward to spot AI-generated content.

Hanke acknowledges that while AI presents a new challenge, he feels more vigilant than ever before. Drusilla Blackman, a former dean of admissions at Harvard and Columbia, echoes Hanke's sentiments, stating that it is usually evident to educators when a student has utilized AI, as the submitted work fails to match their established standards in terms of writing, critical thinking, and overall performance.

Written by urgent.news from Business Insider's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.

Read the original at businessinsider.com →

More in AI

Building a Self-Correcting AI Agent with Reflection Loops in Python

Language models produce wrong answers. Not occasionally — regularly. When you deploy an LLM to automate tasks, you need a way to catch and fix those errors without human intervention.

  • Reflection loop automates tasks in language models
  • Two-step cycle: generate and critique
  • Critique step uses second LLM call or deterministic check

More from Sunday 23 August →