Error-riddled feedback on a university assignment; could the feedback have been AI generated???

Hi all,

I recently got feedback on an assignment I submitted and received several erroneous criticisms. These are errors that I highly doubt a person would have made, and combined with a robotic style of writing at times, I’m wondering if faculty is using AI to provide feedback. Faculty has never alerted students to the possible use of AI in marking. When I messaged the course convenor about the errors in the feedback (not my AI suspicions) their response also seemed a bit suspect for AI use.

For example:

They quote parts of my work, and claimed content was not included, such as “consider ‘x’” or “follow-up on ‘y’“. Meanwhile, such content was evidently provided in the preceding sentences/paragraphs. They read so closely that it appears they have flagged the inconsistent spacing between words as a formatting error. Meanwhile, such text was set to ‘justified’, a routine formatting setting to enhance the appearance of a body text. Spelling and grammar issues were supposedly throughout the text, but upon review by myself and the faculty, none could be identified. Blatant errors concerning visual elements. For example, criticising the placement of a figure title as being above a figure when it was clearly below the figure. Alternatively, discussing the placement of titles for figures (plural) when there was only one. How could a human who read the assignment ever make such mistakes with visual elements? Providing a high-level summary but missing essential details of the assignment and using vague and robotic language/word choices (e.g., multifaceted/outcome). At times, they also end up regurgitating the marking criteria to illustrate the differences between scoring bands and then claiming something objective is subjective and thus not contestable.

When I raised the errors with the course convenor, she seemed to double down on most issues, and based on our emails, she seemed to use AI herself. The course convenor may be the original marker. Moreover, because of the implicit issues of academic integrity, I’m afraid to raise my concerns with faculty given the risk of reprisal – the course convenor is influential, and they can likely mark down my future work and cause professional difficulties for me after I graduate. Given our lengthy email exchange, even if I were to report it anonymously, the course convenor may still be able to figure out it was me. I briefly considered requesting a formal remark, but it would likely go directly back to the course convenor, and I could be punished (uni policy does not stipulate a different marker).

Now, this is where I need your help:

Do you think I have some valid reasons to suspect the use of AI? Please see the poll. Why / why not? What are some red flags for AI use? Do you have any good resources you could link? I’ve tried some AI detectors, but this appears too advanced. Are you aware of academic staff/faculties that covertly use AI for marking? What sort of program/software do they use? Any that allow rubrics to be uploaded, along with assignments and prompts? How would you suggest I approach the issue? I fear reprisal if identified by faculty. However, I’d like the issues to be addressed, especially as continued AI use with inadequate oversight has the potential to continue to harm my marks. I’m thinking of approaching my co-supervisor unofficially for advice. We have a good working relationship, and I trust them. I’m on a student rep body, but I don’t know of other students in a similar situation yet, and if I raised it officially as a rep I’d be too identifiable.

Please share your thoughts,

Thank you!

View Poll

submitted by /u/Realistic_Repair5195
[link] [comments]

Leave a Reply

The Future Is A.I. !
To top