2 con't. Yes, even if our slides include material from outside sources - it's new work given the organization, summary, analysis, etc. is ours. 3. Students are allowed to use our IP for private use (see academic fair use policies for more). This doesn't include uploading to *any* external sites. - ThreadSky

elisestickles.bsky.social • 70 days ago

2 con't. Yes, even if our slides include material from outside sources - it's new work given the organization, summary, analysis, etc. is ours.

3. Students are allowed to use our IP for private use (see academic fair use policies for more). This doesn't include uploading to *any* external sites.

Comments

jaclynb.bsky.social•70 days ago

Do you have it written that they cannot upload to any external sites (including rules of ethics from the school, etc.)? Because one could argue that having AI break down the slides could constitute personal use.

elisestickles.bsky.social•70 days ago

In the past I've had explicit proscriptions ("do not upload to external sites like Chegg") and prescriptions ("these are the circumstances in which you can use generative AI") but not explicitly proscribed the use of genAI for studying/uploading my content. now I know better.

elisestickles.bsky.social•70 days ago

4. OpenAI does not *store* material uploaded to it via the prompt (it doesn't "store" anything tbf) but unless you change the settings, it uses prompt material to train its algorithm. In lay terms it now "has" my slides because it's used them to improve their product.

elisestickles.bsky.social•70 days ago

4, con't. In my syllabus I state that I retain copyright over all course materials, and neither the student nor OpenAI asked for permission to use my materials outside academic fair use standards. That is what I meant by IP "theft". I don't know the technical term for it - again, IANAL.

elisestickles.bsky.social•70 days ago

5. I appreciate this is an open area of copyright law and I'm mostly concerned with it from the academic and ethical issues surrounding it. Even if it's technically legal for the student to do what they did (and that is an open question, to my understanding) - it's still academic misconduct.

elisestickles.bsky.social•70 days ago

6. The first main point of my thread was that students don't *know* it constitutes misconduct, as they are unaware of how OpenAI works (shoutout to everyone in the thread mis-explaining it to me, thx) or what they are allowed to do with course materials as defined by our uni policies.

elisestickles.bsky.social•70 days ago

7. The second main point was to draw awareness to the issue for other educators. (If you look at the thread responses they're bifurcated between the legal responses caught up on my terminology (mis)usage, and other educators responding to this point.)

mrhunsaker.bsky.social•70 days ago

Be afraid when Windows Recall goes live. Everything we provide electronically will be archived and used for copilot training.

thebenedictevans.bsky.social•57 days ago

You are of course entitled to tell students to turn off the training switch

But the more interesting puzzle is what you think in principle about a student using software to summarise the slides. Is that cheating? We used to think that spellcheck or grammar check was cheating. Now it’s just software

keithbostic.bsky.social•57 days ago

I looked at the UBC academic misconduct policy. AFAICT, under their rules, posting class slides into AI is allowed; AI output based on your slides could be used as well, if properly cited. I am not an academic, so maybe I'm missing something obvious...

https://academicintegrity.ubc.ca/regulation-process/academic-misconduct/

elisestickles.bsky.social•57 days ago

This is a more-relevant guide wrt copyright. Note at the top it applies to both employees and students. https://copyright.ubc.ca/basics-faq/

elisestickles.bsky.social•57 days ago

and I talk a bit more about it in this thread https://bsky.app/profile/elisestickles.bsky.social/post/3le3rvqepns2p

keithbostic.bsky.social•57 days ago

Is there an explicit clause you're looking at?

The “Fair Dealing Exception” allows any person to use a copyrighted work for the allowable purposes of research, private study ... without the copyright holder’s permission. " apply?

"Private study" would seem to cover the ground for a summary.

keithbostic.bsky.social•57 days ago

I think "academic misconduct" is undefined here, that is, each institution defines that term for itself.

Am I correct in that?

Can you point to an academy that has declared (for example), loading your class slides into AI for summarization is academic misconduct?

davekasten.bsky.social•70 days ago

Under what grounds is it academic misconduct?

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply