AI can write better university assignments than students, report suggests
Research found ChatGPT matched or exceeded the efforts of humans when answering questions across a range of subjects.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Artificial intelligence (AI) models can achieve better average grades in university writing assignments than real-life students, a new report has suggested.
The research, published in Scientific Reports, found ChatGPT matched or exceeded the efforts of students when answering assessment questions in subjects including computer science, political studies, engineering, and psychology.
It also found almost three-quarters of students surveyed (74%) would use ChatGPT to help with their assignments, despite 70% of educators viewing it as plagiarism.
ChatGPT – a chatbot that can provide detailed prose responses and engage in human-like conversations using prompts – burst into the public consciousness following its release in November last year.
In the research, faculty members on 32 courses at New York University Abu Dhabi (NYUAD) provided three student submissions each for 10 assessment questions.
ChatGPT was also asked to produce three sets of answers to the 10 questions, which were then assessed alongside the students’ responses by three blind graders.
The findings showed ChatGPT-generated answers achieved a similar or higher average grade than students in 12 of the 32 courses, with maths and economics the only two disciplines where students consistently outperformed AI.
The gap in performance between ChatGPT and students was much smaller on questions requiring high levels of knowledge and cognitive process, compared to those requiring intermediate levels.
This suggests that educators need to come up with alternative solutions to integrate, rather than prevent, the use of AI in schoolwork
ChatGPT only outperformed the students on questions requiring factual knowledge, as opposed to skills like creativity, and struggled most in comparison to students where trick questions were included in the assignment.
According to the report, there was a general consensus among educators and students that the use of ChatGPT in school work should be acknowledged.
Students also agreed that, in their future job, they would be able to outsource mundane tasks to ChatGPT, allowing them to focus on substantive and creative work.
Talal Rahwan and Yasir Zaki, computer science professors at NYUAD who led the project, said: “AI tools such as ChatGPT have already reached a level where they can outperform students in a considerable number of university-level courses.
“Moreover, as our survey indicates, the majority of students intend to use such tools to solve homework assignments.
“These findings suggest that evaluating students through homework assignments may no longer serve its purpose in the age of AI, raising a serious challenge for educational institutions worldwide.”
Mr Rahwan and Mr Zaki added that educational institutions need to “urgently craft appropriate academic integrity policies” as a means of regulation.
Two tools used for identifying AI-generated text also struggled to correctly state the origin of the assignments in the research.
OpenAI’s Text Classifier mistook almost half (49%) of ChatGPT’s submissions for being human-generated, whilst GPTZero misclassified around a third (32%) of submissions in the same way.
Mr Rahwan and Mr Zaki said: “Current AI-text classifiers cannot reliably detect ChatGPT’s use in schoolwork, due to both their propensity to classify human-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the relative ease with which AI-generated text can be edited to evade detection.
“This suggests that educators need to come up with alternative solutions to integrate, rather than prevent, the use of AI in schoolwork.”
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Artificial intelligence has the power to transform education. However, for that potential to be realised, we need to be able to understand both the opportunities and the risks that this new technology brings.
“That is why we have launched a call to evidence so that we can learn from those working in education – helping us to make the right decisions to get the best out of generative AI in a safe and secure way.”