Parents Take School To Court After Student Punished For Using AI 81
The parents of a Massachusetts student are suing his school after he was penalized for using AI in a Social Studies project, claiming it was for research purposes only. The student received a detention and a lower grade, which his parents argue could harm his college prospects. The school is defending its AI policy and fighting to dismiss the case. The Register reports: "The Plaintiff Student will suffer irreparable harm that far outweighs any harm that may befall the Defendants," their filing reads [PDF]. "He is applying to elite colleges and universities given his high level of academic and personal achievement. Early decision and early action applications in a highly competitive admissions process are imminent and start in earnest on October 1, 2024. Absent the grant of an injunction by this Court, the Student will suffer irreparable harm that is imminent."
The school, however, is fighting back with a motion to dismiss [PDF] the case. The school argues that RNH, along with his classmates, was given a copy of the student handbook in the Fall of last year, which specifically called out the use of AI by students. The class was also shown a presentation about the school's policy. Students should "not use AI tools during in-class examinations, processed writing assignments, homework or classwork unless explicitly permitted and instructed," the policy states. "RNH unequivocally used another author's language and thoughts, be it a digital and artificial author, without express permission to do so," the school argues. "Furthermore, he did not cite to his use of AI in his notes, scripts or in the project he submitted. Importantly, RNH's peers were not allowed to cut corners by using AI to craft their projects; thus, RNH acted 'unfairly in order to gain an advantage.'"
The school, however, is fighting back with a motion to dismiss [PDF] the case. The school argues that RNH, along with his classmates, was given a copy of the student handbook in the Fall of last year, which specifically called out the use of AI by students. The class was also shown a presentation about the school's policy. Students should "not use AI tools during in-class examinations, processed writing assignments, homework or classwork unless explicitly permitted and instructed," the policy states. "RNH unequivocally used another author's language and thoughts, be it a digital and artificial author, without express permission to do so," the school argues. "Furthermore, he did not cite to his use of AI in his notes, scripts or in the project he submitted. Importantly, RNH's peers were not allowed to cut corners by using AI to craft their projects; thus, RNH acted 'unfairly in order to gain an advantage.'"
AI search vs. cheat (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
He wasn't punished for plagiarism. He was punished for using an AI when he was told not to.
Re: AI search vs. cheat (Score:5, Insightful)
Hair splitting at its finest.
The student did not write what was submitted and turned it in as if it was, despite being given warning it was unacceptable conduct in both student handbook and in a presentation to students at the start of the year.
Given that, it is cheating, plagiarism, or both.
Re:AI search vs. cheat (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AI search vs. cheat (Score:5, Informative)
More specifically, he is getting punished for getting caught.
If he had used AI to generate an essay and asked it for references, then read it, absorbed the knowledge and rewritten it in his own words while also validating and correctly referencing the references, he would have been fine.
Re: (Score:2)
The statement from the school talks about using work from another author, be it a real one or an artificial one, so it sounds like their legal defence is plagurism.
Sounds like the kid deserves some credit here for using AI to generate ideas and do some basic research that could then be verified.
Re:AI search vs. cheat (Score:4, Informative)
I've now read over both filings.
First off, we have a basic difference of fact that the court needs to sort out. The plaintiffs (the student's family) insists that they were never given a prohibition on the use of AI tools. The school insists that they absolutely were. The court is going to need to assess the facts in this case. I suspect that the school will provide the documents and have a teacher insist that they were given out, and I suspect the defendants will call up other students claiming they were never given out, and that there's not going to be a clear way to establish this one. I expect they'll be able to establish that it was on the Google Classroom portal, although I'm not sure that having some random file on the portal will be sufficient to expect all students to have read it.
Even if they establish that he should have been familiar with the AI policy, it's not entirely clear that what he did was a major violation. The school boldfaces a section stating that AI should not be used "during in-class examinations, processed writing assignments, homework or classwork unless explicitly permitted and instructed.". . But then the second paragraph immediately goes on to state that the student should "Use AI tools responsibly, only when aiming to deepen understanding of subject matter and to support learning without replacing their own critical thinking." which establishes that there are, in fact, perfectly acceptable uses of AI for the student, and indeed, the ones the student is reported to have done. They are however supposed to credit the AI even for generating ideas, however. No punishments are stated.
The school, seeming to anticipate that they may have trouble proving that the students were actually given the AI policy, or that what he did was a serious violation of it worthy of the penalties given, puts a lot of effort into this weird plagiarism argument, arguing that the use of an AI tool is "plagiarism", and that this runs afoul of the clearly spelled out (with punishments) plagiarism terms in the school handbook (the school openly admits that the use of AI isn't banned in the handbook). You never know how a judge will rule on something, but this strikes me as a very weak argument. In particular, the claim that "the AI constitutes unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author" is just factually incorrect and a gross misunderstanding of how AI tools work, and I expect the plaintiffs to challenge them on this and win - namely, because the plaintiffs won't be able to find any supposed "originals" being plagiarized, because there aren't any, because that's not how AI models work**.
**You can, through overtraining on specific elements in the dataset, have such frequently replicated specific elements be memorized (not general information, which is a literal impossibility for it to memorize it all), but first of all, this stuff is generally the sort of stuff that you want memorized (like, say, you want it knowing The Star Spangled Banner, not making up a new song about banners spangled by stars), plus a lot of boilerplate, common expression, etc; and secondly, even when it actually does have text on a particular topic memorized, it doesn't just give you that text, unless you're asking for direct quotations and the finetune is supportive of it (e.g. finetunes generally train the model to refuse to give anything that might be under copyright). In all of these "replicating training data" studies, they basically have to hack the model, because the model won't "willingly" do so. I can very clearly, with confidence, state: there will be no "original" to what the school thinks is plagiarized.
Back to the case:
Exactly what the kid did isn't entirely spelled out, but the school's filing has more info than the parents' (although they would be expected to spin it in a more negative light to the student). According to the school, the kid had the AI "generate ideas" and "created portions of his
Re: (Score:2)
** "namely, because the defendants won't be able to find any supposed "originals" being plagiarized"
Re: (Score:2)
The only "language and thoughts" involved are the AI's, and he absolutely has permission to use them. Again, I think it's a really bad idea for the school to be pushing this argument,
Yes, that does seem a strange argument to be making even from the academic side. If it were me making the argument, I'd put far more emphasis on the point of the assignment i.e. to assess the student's ability to research and then present clear and concise arguments on a topic, since using the AI to do the writing completely undermines the writing component of the assessment - you are now assessing the AI not the student. Whether it is cheating or plagiarism matters much less than the fact that the student
Re: (Score:2)
According to the filing, he wasn't told not to: "At the time, the Hingham High School Student Handbook (the “Handbook”) did not proscribe the use of artificial intelligence, nor did the Handbook have any established rules, policies or procedures for not only the use of artificial intelligence, but what any administrators, faculty or students should do when encountering its use. During the investigation, the Plaintiffs learned, for the first time, that the Defendants previously inducted seven stu
Re:AI search vs. cheat (Score:5, Informative)
That sequence of words was not there before he generated it with software. Therefore the words are his own work even if he did not create the sequence directly.
He did not generate it, the AI algorithm did. Whether or not it is plagiarism vs. cheating depends on whether you regard that the student is copying the output of the algorithm (plagiarism) vs. using a forbidden tool to avoid doing the required work and gain an unjustified academic advantage (cheating). I'd tend to favour the cheating interpretation but since AI algorithms can sometimes regurgitate verbatim sections of the data they were trained on it can sometimes very clearly be plagiarism.
Either way, given the information available it seems very clear that the kid committed an academic offence.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd tend to favour the cheating interpretation
What we think is actually quite irrelevant. If there is a policy against using it there's a policy against using it. Plagiarism vs cheating is purely academic. The school policy on AI was broken.
Re: (Score:2)
Plagiarism vs cheating is purely academic. The school policy on AI was broken.
Exactly, the entire point is that the offence this kid committed is purely academic which is why an academic sanction, such as a reduction of grades is warranted. One of our local schools has a stupid policy about not walking on the school crest that they helpfully put in the floor in front of the main doors. If they started docking the grades of students who violated that policy by walking on the crest then they would jolly well deserve to be sued - simply violating a school policy is not sufficient groun
Re: AI search vs. cheat (Score:2)
"he did not draw it, the pencil did" ...?
Re: (Score:3)
The kid used a tool to generate what is likely a fairly unique sequence of words. That sequence of words was not there before he generated it with software. Therefore the words are his own work even if he did not create the sequence directly.
The school's academic manual defines plagiarism as copying the words of a human or AI, so the hair you chose to split wasn't nearly as clever as you thought.
What sort of moron feels the need to defend use of IA in a context where you're obviously supposed to demonstrate your own understanding? You not only want a tool to think for you, you want somebody to pay you on the head and tell you're good at thinking at the same time? Pathetic. Shave your neck.
Re: AI search vs. cheat (Score:2)
I'm a teacher, and we just had long meetings on this yesterday. We are not at all opposed to using it for research or even giving you a starting point it fresh perspective.
There are some who will go after you for using grammerly because it generates text that you then use. I have no problem since it is mostly acting as an editor, and students with lesser language skills are able to be on a more even level. You still need to create and express your ideas, not an AI generated one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, because they do select words to "sound good" they excel at editing. They can clean up text, fix gram
Re: (Score:2)
If you are serious, you should at least make your kids learn to do that themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Let's be clear: If you actually read the filing, he used Grammarly to edit the notes he took during National History Day, and also used AI to "generate ideas" for his project - an act which wasn't in violation of the school handbook, and may or may not have been in violation of the school AI policy, which may or may not have been presented to the students, and which listed no punishments.
For this, he was given a zero (with the ability to redo the assignment for a maximum of a D), Saturday detention, and str
Re: (Score:2)
.. the school that just doing a google-search these days means you have used an AI-powered tool.
Let the fun begin.
Yeah, and I'm sure if someone hand in a printout of the results page they'd get an F.
Ah so these are the parents (Score:5, Insightful)
People often say that parents are no longer the allies of the school when it comes to discipline or punishment or breaking the rules and that the parents always think their children are special or exempt from these things. I always think that might be a generalization but here is one data point anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
We're way behind other parts of the world. In some places, parents actively help students cheat [cbsnews.com]. It's more low keyed in other countries, but parents are definitely not on the teachers side.
Re:Ah so these are the parents (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of teachers are also really awful.
Re: (Score:2)
TL;DR: What goes around comes around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Fuck, my parents would've turned me in.
Re: (Score:3)
People often say that parents are no longer the allies of the school when it comes to discipline or punishment or breaking the rules and that the parents always think their children are special or exempt from these things. I always think that might be a generalization but here is one data point anyway.
To be fair the system is actively against the parents these days. Yeah it's ridiculous that the parents are suing the school to overturn the legitimate punishment the kid got, but likewise it is ridiculous that his college application would consider anything other than his academic record. Give him an F on this one assignment and the college should just look at his final average grade, nothing more nothing less.
When we start judging academic capability by the ability to kiss arse, kick footballs, help the e
Re: (Score:2)
The Plaintiff Student will suffer irreparable harm that far outweighs any harm that may befall the Defendants," their filing reads
The parents, Karen and Kevin you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
after several years as a college professor, I got drafted to teach in my kids school after moving back home. (by "drafted", I mean that I wasn'tasked, but rather informed that I would be teaching fifth grade the next week!).
Anyway, the difference was night and day. At college, we cannot talk to parents; we simply cite the Buckley amendment and refer them to our bosses for questions.
In grammar school, ow wow, yikes, and my hat off to those that come back every year to do it again.
Parents.
just plain "no."
My only options will be Devry or the University of (Score:2)
My only options will be Devry or the University of Phoenix! which one Mrs. Hill?!?!
Better to learn early (Score:3)
Re:Better to learn early (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The tell that's he's guilty is that the filing claims the school didn't disclose rules against using, but the media has already published excerpts of the school's academic manual that expressly forbid use of AI tools, not only for writing the text of an assignment, but even for generating arguments.
So the parents demanded that the lawyer file a case, either without doing any research first to find out if they had a case, or knowing that they didn't have a case. It screams, "Do you know who I am?! You can't
Re: (Score:2)
Better yet, let's teach the kid that if you break the rules and get caught, the proper response is to change the rules and lie about your involvement...
Doesn't Sound Like Top Tier Talent (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a tragic message for the parents. Your child isn't as smart as you say he is.
I use AI for all kinds of writing tasks. After just a few prompts it's easy to see the formulaic patterns that ChatGPT throws into the text. ("In Summary [...]", bullet lists, etc)
It sounds like this kid's real crime was using AI without proof-reading it. Because it doesn't take many tweaks to the output to make your content sound self-written.
Re: (Score:2)
We need a law. All AI output must be produced in Yoda-ish [urbandictionary.com].
Re: (Score:2)
oh, c'mon. That's nonsense.
Yodaish, must al AI output be.
Re: (Score:1)
Plus often including content relevant to different more popular essay prompt.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a tragic message for the parents. Your child isn't as smart as you say he is.
You're passing judgement on a single case. AI is relatively new, and from everything we can tell in TFS this kid has a long history of good grades.
I graduated top of my class, I have paperwork showing I'm "smart". But let's not pretend that I didn't I had a 100% perfect zero cheating history in school. Odd cases (such as completely forgetting about an assignment for one course) cause odd behaviour (madly copying it down from another student 10min before it needs to be handed in). That was my worst offense a
Right to plagiarize (Score:5, Interesting)
This is 'nothing bad happened' thinking. While common and innocuous itself, it leads to 'it didn't happen to me' thinking: That is far from harmless. The name Stockton Rush should be fresh in people's minds.
Yes, every college will remember this student demanding the right to plagiarize, when explicitly told not to.
While courts have sided with shallow arguments of morality, a "he did not cite" behaviour demonstrates selfishness.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, every college will remember this student demanding the right to plagiarize, when explicitly told not to.
That's what I thought too, but they anonymize his name in the lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
The lawsuit has his parents' names. It's not going to be hard to figure out the kid from the application.
Re: (Score:2)
Children of the Snowflake (Score:5, Insightful)
The children of the Snowflake feel entitled to break the rules because they can't think for themselves or accept the consequences of their behavior.
Reminds me of a conversation from TRON:
Alan Bradley: Some programs will be thinking soon.
Dr. Walter Gibbs: Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop.
Re: (Score:2)
The children of the Snowflake feel entitled to break the rules because they can't think for themselves or accept the consequences of their behavior.
Yup, just like this one [totalprosports.com]. We know who he's voting for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, just like this one [totalprosports.com].
What a moron.
I'm having a hard time seeing the parents' side (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm having a hard time seeing the parents' side.
If a student is doing simple math homework and uses a calculator, that's cheating.
So why should it change if a student is doing an essay and asks an AI to write it?
In both cases, the educational goal isn't to find a tool to do the work, but for the student to understand the concepts being taught.
Now the parents' argument that this may negatively impact their child's future also seems pretty flawed to me. The same could be said for a student that buys a paper off the internet from a cheating website, is caught, and receives a failing grade. But few people would say that the cheating student was unfairly punished.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of people cheat, the actual smart ones just don't get caught by being a lazy cheat.
Of course in the real world cheating doesn't matter if you have money for a lawyer with no ethics.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
A calculator is just a tool too, but like in early math class - such tools are considered cheating when you are supposed to be learning your own basic skills. Sure doing an Al chat is also just a tool, but it is cheating when you are supposed to be learning the material for yourself.
I disagree with you, just like that calculator, using 'Al' instead of doing the work yourself is cheating. It is cheating regardless of
Re: (Score:2)
Tomorrow those parents you can't seem to be bothered understanding the feelings will have their weekly party, probably even golf, with other parents, and they will be belittled for not only having been caught, but having failed to bribe their way out of it
That will have them being excluded from some of the exclusive parts of that club for sure
Think a detention will put off colleges? (Score:4, Funny)
Book 'em, Dano! (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey Mom, hey Dad, maybe the "lesson" you're teaching your son is that if he doesn't respect the rules, you'll always be there to bail him out, even if it means spending $$$ on lawyer fees. That would do him a lot more damage than not being accepted into some indoctrination camp.
Insane parents (Score:3)
What I find insane is that parents get involved at all in this sort of thing, let alone go to court over it.
My kids are adults now, but I never got involved if the school disciplined them unless the school contacted me. Part of getting an education is learning to deal with difficult people, and if mommy and daddy are going to launch a lawsuit every time somebody hurts the kiddy's feelings, they'll never grow up.
Education isn't a Contest (Score:2)
RNH's peers were not allowed to cut corners by using AI to craft their projects; thus, RNH acted 'unfairly in order to gain an advantage.'"
That pretty much says it all. Education as a contest between students. If you wonder why our schools are generally failing large number of students that explains it. You can't have winners without creating some losers.
Re: (Score:2)
That, but also, what's the point of making a kid "suffer irreparable harm"? Do we seriously expect kids to not make any mistake? I do believe this should be a failed grade (or whatever term is appropriate here), but this should also not follow him his whole life, that's pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I might not want the kid to enroll in my class if he just failed that test yesterday, but that doesn't mean he can't make it up and re-apply once his understanding of the material improves. It's not "irreparable harm" in the grand scheme of things. The only "harm" that could happen in the short term is that he loses face amongst his peers for not keeping up with his studies, but that's his fau
Re: (Score:2)
The parents should be required to submit a book report on "So Much Unfairness of Things" . . .
(A writing which usedprice/I of second chances. Oh, and that notion of "honor" . . .).
Re: (Score:2)
Education is not a contest - grading is a contest. Taking a course, doing your best, and coming out with a C is not being a 'loser'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I won't, because the fact that they punished him for breaking rules that he had agreed to tells us nothing about their concerns for his education, nor about their actions to remedy it - that's a presumption on your part. Indeed, being punished for breaking rules that you agreed to is a useful lesson in and of itself.
I am sure the kid will recover (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When recruiting we develop a matrix of characteristics we are looking for, specifically so that _where_ those abilities were gained can not affect the result. Big name universities are more about who you meet than what you learn. In fact, you may be advanced further at a second-tier university as they are more used to supporting students.
The kid was lazy. (Score:3)
Everybody knows that the way to avoid getting accused of using material you did not write is to paraphrase it. The student should have read it, and used the age old pattern of, "So if I understand you correctly..."
Citation and quote marks help. Paraphrasing is nearly bulletproof. The kid was just straight up lazy.
He is a Honor student taking advanced classes... (Score:2)
Buying Term Papers (Score:3)
I was in college during the dawn of the (public) internet when students figured out they could buy term papers online. I didn't, but I knew plenty others who did. Years later colleges started running past papers through those services that would match up purchased papers and red flag the cheaters, and they revoked degrees from graduates who had done this. So beware, kids.
Re: (Score:2)
>when students figured out they could buy term papers online.
oh, it goes back further than internet and web.
I had a professor comment in the early 80s that he didn't assign term papers because it was embarrassing when someone submitted something that you'd written that found its way to those companies. A for content, but . . .
>through those services that would match up purchased papers and red flag the cheaters,
they're probably better now, but I was required to participate in one of those services wh
Should or must? (Score:2)
Should or must? "Should" is not mandatory, it's a bit flexible. This is an ambiguous word. If it's mandatory, use "must".
Lil' Darlin' Fscks Up– (Score:2)
Pretentious Parents Parley Pusillanimous Proceedings into Protest
News at 11.
They should fit right in with the ivy league (Score:2)
Having an active disdain for rules they disagree with and parents that support getting away with it means they'll fit right in at our "elite" universities. They have a bright future in big business and/or politics!