Raw LLM Responses

My school years predate LLMs by... a lot. I agree that a lot of the usage being reported is cheating, and the real problem with cheating isn't that people get the output without doing the work; the real problem with academic cheating is that _doing the work_ is the point. We measure effort and mastery by the same metric (which is what cheating spoofs) and can't acknowledge that learning to grind is more important than what students are grinding to learn. It's the difference between working and working out. When you're working, the only thing that matters is how much you can do-- and you want to do less than that, so that you can do it quickly and reliably. Working out is the opposite; it doesn't matter how much you can lift, as long as you're lifting *_all of it_* and then some. I've never cheated on a school assignment or a test. If I'd bothered to cheat half as often as I was accused of it, my teachers would have seen me "learning" and believed I actually knew what the tests proved I did. And that would have just made the outcome worse, because I would have been stagnant and mediocre in an important job with _no clue_ that I was a walking failstate. I think academic dishonesty cheapens and worsens the whole educational system, especially when combined with generative AI, but I also think schools using AI tools to blindly accuse and punish students of using AI tools to commit plagiarism is doing the exact same thing: taking an existing problem and using technology to make it worse.