Game of Tones: Faculty detection of GPT-4 generated content in university assessments
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1007/s10805-023-09492-6 · Paper page
Abstract
This study explores the robustness of university assessments against the use of Open AI's Generative Pre-Trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) generated content and evaluates the ability of academic staff to detect its use when supported by the Turnitin Artificial Intelligence (AI) detection tool. The research involved twenty-two GPT-4 generated submissions being created and included in the assessment process to be marked by fifteen different faculty members. The study reveals that although the detection tool identified 91% of the experimental submissions as containing some AI-generated content, the total detected content was only 54.8%. This suggests that the use of adversarial techniques regarding prompt engineering is an effective method in evading AI detection tools and highlights that improvements to AI detection software are needed. Using the Turnitin AI detect tool, faculty reported 54.5% of the experimental submissions to the academic misconduct process, suggesting the need for increased awareness and training into these tools. Genuine submissions received a mean score of 54.4, whereas AI-generated content scored 52.3, indicating the comparable performance of GPT-4 in real-life situations. Recommendations include adjusting assessment strategies to make them more resistant to the use of AI tools, using AI-inclusive assessment where possible, and providing comprehensive training programs for faculty and students. This research contributes to understanding the relationship between AI-generated content and academic assessment, urging further investigation to preserve academic integrity.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This is just the second study to evaluate the effectiveness of publicly available AI text detectors in identifying documents generated by ChatGPT-4.
“This is just the second study to evaluate the effectiveness of publicly available AI text detectors in identifying documents generated by ChatGPT-4.(Perkins et al., 2023, was the first.)”
From The Effectiveness of Software Designed to Detect AI-Generated Writing: A Comparison of 16 AI Text Detectors (2023) · cites this paper as Perkins et al., 2023
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 233
- Authors
- Perkins, M., Roe, J., Postma, D., McGaughran, J., & Hickerson, D.
- Affiliations
- British University Vietnam (VN)
- James Cook University Singapore (SG)
- Corresponding author
- Perkins, Mike
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 89-113
- ISSN
- 1570-1727 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2305.18081
- OpenAlex
- W4388108480
- Cited by
- 233
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 93 · 2025: 82 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 9
- FWCI
- 58.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Academic Ethics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion)
- Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Authorship Attribution and Profiling
- Keywords
- generative AI detection, AI-generated text, academic integrity, academic misconduct, university evaluation, ChatGPT, prompting techniques, higher education
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review