Students at Staffordshire University expressed feeling “deprived of knowledge and enjoyment” upon realizing that the course they intended to pursue for their digital careers was primarily delivered through AI.
James and Owen were part of 41 students who enrolled in a coding module last year at Staffordshire, looking to make a government-supported career transition. apprentice A program aimed at preparing individuals to become cybersecurity experts or software engineers.
However, as AI-generated slides were intermittently narrated by an AI voiceover, James began to lose confidence in the program and its administrators, fearing he had “wasted two years” of his life on a course designed “in the most cost-effective manner.”
“If I were to submit something created by an AI, I’d be expelled from the university, yet we are being instructed by an AI,” James remarked during a confrontation with an instructor recorded as part of a course in October 2024.
James and his peers have engaged in several discussions with university officials regarding the use of AI in their coursework. Nonetheless, the university seems to persist in utilizing AI-generated materials for instruction. This year, it posted a policy statement on its course website rationalizing the use of AI, detailing a “Framework for Academic Professionals to Leverage AI Automation” in their academic activities and teaching.
The university’s foreign policy states that students who outsource assignments to AI or present AI-generated work as their own are breaching the integrity policy and could face academic misconduct charges.
“I’m in the midst of my life and career,” James lamented. “I don’t feel I can just leave and start over now. I feel trapped on this path.”
The situation at Staffordshire resembles this more and more. Universities are integrating AI tools to assist students, develop course materials, and provide tailored feedback. A Ministry of Education policy document released in August welcomed this trend, asserting that generative AI “has the potential to revolutionize education.” A survey conducted last year by education technology firm Jisc among 3,287 higher education faculty revealed that almost a quarter use AI tools in their teaching.
For students, AI education seems to be more demoralizing than transformative. In the US, students have voiced their discontent online in reviews about professors using AI. In the UK, undergraduates turned to Reddit to express frustration over instructors copying and pasting feedback generated by AI. Chat GPT or using AI-generated content in coursework images.
“I recognize there’s pressure compelling instructors to use AI, but I’m just disappointed,” commented one student. I wrote.
James and Owen realized “almost immediately” that AI was being utilized in their Staffordshire course last year, notably during their first class when the instructor presented a PowerPoint with an AI audio reading the slides.
Shortly thereafter, they began to notice indications that some course materials were AI-generated, including inconsistent editing of American and British English, suspicious file names, and “general, surface-level information” that sometimes cryptically referenced U.S. law.
Signs of AI-generated content persisted this year. In one course video uploaded online, the narration introducing the material shifted to a Spanish accent for approximately 30 seconds before reverting to a British accent.
Narration accent changes during lesson in allegedly AI-generated course – video
The Guardian examined the course materials at Staffordshire and utilized two distinct AI detectors (Winston AI and Originality AI) to assess this year’s content. Both indicated that numerous assignments and presentations were “highly likely to have been generated by AI.”
Ms. James reported her concerns during a monthly meeting with student representatives early in the course. Later, in late November, it was discussed in a lecture and incorporated into the instructional materials. In the recording, he requests the instructor refrain from worrying about the slides.
“Everyone knows these slides were generated by AI. We would prefer if they were discarded,” he stated. “I don’t want guidance from GPT.”
Shortly after, the student representative for the course responded, “We conveyed this feedback, James, and the reply was that instructors can use diverse tools. This answer was quite frustrating.”
Another student commented: “While there are some helpful points in the presentation, only 5% of it is useful. There’s valuable content buried here, but perhaps we can extract that value ourselves by consulting ChatGPT.”
The lecturer laughed awkwardly, saying, “I appreciate the honesty…” before shifting to discuss another tutorial he had created using ChatGPT. “Honestly, I did this on very short notice,” he added.
Ultimately, the course director informed James that he would not receive an AI experience in the final session, as the material would be evaluated by two human instructors.
In response to inquiries from the Guardian, Staffordshire University asserted that “academic standards and learning objectives were upheld” for the course.
“Staffordshire University endorses the responsible and ethical application of digital technologies in accordance with our guidelines. While AI tools may aid certain aspects of preparation, they cannot replace academic expertise and must always be utilized in a manner that preserves academic integrity and discipline standards.”
Although the university appointed a non-AI lecturer for the final lecture of the course, James and Owen indicated that it felt insufficient at this point, especially since the university seemingly continued to use AI in this year’s instructional materials.
“I feel as if a part of my life has been taken from me,” James stated.
Owen, who is in the midst of a career transition, explained that he opted for the course to gain foundational knowledge rather than merely a qualification, but he now believes it was a waste of time.
“It’s exceedingly frustrating to sit through material that lacks value when I could be dedicating my time to something genuinely worthwhile,” he remarked.
Source: www.theguardian.com
Trump is being asked by the chemical industry for an exemption from pollution restrictions
President Trump is being asked by two chemical industry groups to grant a complete exemption to free factories from new restrictions on dangerous air pollution.
The Biden administration’s new rules will require chemical plastics to monitor and reduce the emission of toxic pollutants like ethylene oxide, a cancer-causing ingredient used in antifreezes and plastics.
The American Chemical Council and the American Fuel & Petrochemical Makers are seeking a temporary presidential exemption for all polluters in response to these rules.
The Environmental Defense Fund obtained a letter dated March 31, which stated that the new requirement imposed a significantly more expensive burden on member companies with an infeasible timeline.
The groups have written to the Environmental Protection Agency administrator expressing concerns that some of the new rules could cost businesses over $50 billion.
The EPA recently allowed businesses to apply for exemptions from clean air rules by sending emails to agents, citing the Clean Air Act’s provision for temporary exemptions in cases where necessary technology is unavailable or for national security reasons.
During Trump’s administration, the EPA rolled back many of the same rules, allowing businesses to be temporarily exempt from compliance.
A White House spokeswoman stated that Trump’s commitment was to unleash America’s energy, protect national security, and ensure environmental control.
The Biden-era regulations aimed to address the disproportionate environmental hazards faced by communities near chemical plants, particularly low-income, black, or Latino areas experiencing rising rates of asthma, cancer, and other health issues.
Updated regulations governing emissions from chemical plants considered cumulative effects on communities near major chemical hubs, requiring companies to strengthen controls and processes to limit chemical emissions.
Fence line monitoring and other measures are needed to ensure compliance, especially concerning ethylene oxide, which is used in various products such as batteries for electric vehicles and medical device sterilization.
The American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers CEO criticized Biden-era rules as illegal and technically unachievable, posing risks to US manufacturing operations.
Environmental advocates expressed concerns that the Trump administration’s actions were allowing businesses to avoid complying with reasonable restrictions on toxic air pollution.
The move aligns with the administration’s efforts to prioritize cost reduction for businesses and promote energy control rather than environmental protection.
Last month, the administration halted a federal lawsuit against a chemical manufacturer accused of releasing carcinogenic substances from plants in Louisiana.
Source: www.nytimes.com
“What is the meaning of AI?” – Top questions asked to Alexa in the UK in 2024 | Virtual Assistant
Virtual assistants have become a common feature in many UK households, providing information on weather forecasts, time, and sports results.
The most popular virtual assistant is Alexa, and Amazon, its parent company, has released the top questions and requests received for the software in 2024. Some questions were expected, such as queries about Bitcoin, Earth’s population, and the meaning of AI.
However, some of the more surprising questions included inquiries about cooking sausages, Henry VIII’s marriages, and Tom Cruise’s height.
Many people used Alexa in the kitchen as a virtual sous chef, asking for help with recipes for pancakes, Yorkshire pudding, and banana bread.
Celebrities like David Attenborough, Paul McCartney, and Tom Cruise were frequently asked personal questions by users of Alexa.
Monarchs and world leaders were also popular topics of search, with questions about King Charles III’s age, Rishi Sunak’s height, and Donald Trump’s net worth being among the top queries.
Taylor Swift was one of the most searched names, particularly for questions about her height, age, and net worth, only behind Elon Musk.
Additionally, Swift was the most played music artist on Alexa, with three of her albums in the top five most played albums of the year.
Football was the dominant sport in the searches, with questions mainly focused on England’s national team and Premier League clubs.
Players like Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Harry Kane, and Erling Haaland were popular searches throughout the year, especially during England’s European Championship campaign.
One of the most popular questions asked to Alexa was: “Alexa, are you coming to my house?”
Source: www.theguardian.com
Victoria Police asked to investigate HyperVerse information in 2020, but referred the case back to Asic 22 months later.
Australia's corporate watchdog, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), referred information about a US$1.89 billion “pyramid scheme” known as Hyperverse to Victoria Police in 2020. But no action was taken, and the watchdog referred it again almost two years later.
The ASIC referred the company to Victoria Police for “possible criminal fraud” after concerns were raised with corporate regulators about its affiliate company Blockchain Global. The HyperVerse crypto investment scheme was operated by HyperTech Group, founded by two of Blockchain Global's directors, Sam Lee and Ryan Xu.
An ASIC spokesperson said, “Asic provided information relating to the HyperVerse matter to Victoria Police in 2020 after being informed that VicPol was investigating the HyperVerse matter. [alleged] and after determining that it was not a financial product and that the police were in the best position to investigate. [alleged] There is a possibility of criminal fraud.”
Neither ASIC nor Victoria Police provided further details about the alleged act.
“ASIC takes seriously any fraudulent activity that harms investors and we have the authority to act against fraudulent activity in relation to financial products and services,” the spokesperson said. “When we become aware of conduct that is outside of our jurisdiction, we seek to refer information about that conduct to the appropriate authorities.”
However, Victoria Police said it had assessed that information and decided after almost two years that ASIC was “best placed to investigate further”.
Meanwhile, Blockchain Global went bankrupt and owed creditors $58 million, while Mr. Xu and Mr. Lee were allegedly involved in a “global multi-level marketing and marketing of crypto-assets” as per the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Mr. Xu is not named in the SEC's lawsuit.
A Victoria Police spokesperson confirmed it received a referral from ASIC in April 2020, but the matter was not assessed until 2021. After that assessment, “it was decided that the lead agency should be ASIC”.
The matter was transferred back to ASIC in January 2022. Asked why the process took 22 months, a Victoria Police spokesperson said: “For matters of this nature, the first step is to determine whether a criminal offense has been committed and whether it is best to approach Victoria Police. Depending on the situation, it may take some time.”
A spokesperson declined to comment on the content of the evaluation.
Mr. Ashiq said he believes he is acting on this referral. “ASIC understands that this matter is being actively considered by VicPol. Ultimately, VicPol is best placed to explain its decision to refer this matter back to ASIC,” the spokesperson said.
“At the time VicPol referred the matter back to ASIC, an external administrator had been appointed to Blockchain Global. ASIC is currently considering the information contained in the liquidator’s report relating to this scheme.”
At the time ASIC was referred to Victoria Police, the first Hyper scheme, ‘HyperCapital’, was underway and launched in Hong Kong in 2019. Meanwhile, HyperCapital was rebranded to HyperFund in 2020 and became HyperVerse in December 2021.
Mr. Lee denied claims that the scheme was a fraud and defended his role at HyperVerse as limited to the technical and financial management aspects of the business. Members were offered memberships to HyperVerse, where they could explore the HyperVerse ecosystem. There were returns of 0.5% per day and a 300% return over 600 days. HyperUnits were linked to various crypto tokens and could be withdrawn and converted into other cryptocurrencies once matured.
Mr Lee also did not mention that he had resigned from Blockchain Global’s board of directors and that the company was no longer in business.
According to court documents, Brenda Chunga, a senior U.S. promoter charged and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, hired Hypertech Group and Blockchain Global to potentially promote the scheme. Mr. Chunga emphasized his connection with Blockchain Global to give the HyperFund project credibility and increase security of investment.
Ashiq defended his failure to issue a warning about the Hyperfund and Hyperverse investment schemes. Mr. Lee declined to answer questions from Guardian Australia, and Mr Hsu could not be reached for comment.
Source: www.theguardian.com
