English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The emergence of large language models has led to the development of powerfultools such as ChatGPT that can produce text indistinguishable fromhuman-generated work. With the increasing accessibility of such technology,students across the globe may utilize it to help with their school work -- apossibility that has sparked discussions on the integrity of studentevaluations in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). To date, it is unclearhow such tools perform compared to students on university-level courses.Further, students' perspectives regarding the use of such tools, and educators'perspectives on treating their use as plagiarism, remain unknown. Here, wecompare the performance of ChatGPT against students on 32 university-levelcourses. We also assess the degree to which its use can be detected by twoclassifiers designed specifically for this purpose. Additionally, we conduct asurvey across five countries, as well as a more in-depth survey at the authors'institution, to discern students' and educators' perceptions of ChatGPT's use.We find that ChatGPT's performance is comparable, if not superior, to that ofstudents in many courses. Moreover, current AI-text classifiers cannot reliablydetect ChatGPT's use in school work, due to their propensity to classifyhuman-written answers as AI-generated, as well as the ease with whichAI-generated text can be edited to evade detection. Finally, we find anemerging consensus among students to use the tool, and among educators to treatthis as plagiarism. Our findings offer insights that could guide policydiscussions addressing the integration of AI into educational frameworks.

Perception, performance, and detectability of conversational artificial intelligence across 32 university courses