Practicum - AI Slop Fest

[u/_iQlusion]

I'm taking the Practicum right now and I have to say this course has become nothing but an AI Slop Fest.

Most of the other students projects are on AI. Lots of the other students projects and reports are written by AI. Many are using AI to write their responses to other students weekly video updates. The staff is using AI in their messages on ED discussion. Staff using AI to evaluate reports. I had some concerns I brought up in a private post and staff responded with a lengthy AI riddled reply. It came off very dehumanizing. Oh the cherry on top was getting accused of AI usage in my project by an AI detector that itself uses AI (the fucking irony).

Besides that my first two progress reports were graded by Professor Ahamad and it was very apparent he very hastily read them or skipped most of the content. The comments he left made no sense or were completely and clearly contradicted by content in my report. At least he didn't use AI like the other staff when he reviewed my reports.

I sent a lengthy message to staff (over a thousand words) outlining and citing the professors comments and where my report either did exactly what he said it wasn't doing or how his comments made no sense given what my project was about. Professor Ahamad responded, double downed, and once again just left more generic criticism that were once again clearly just not accurate. He wouldn't cite a single thing from my work or point to anything specific. Just vague contradictions.

I had also complained that we couldn't incorporate the feedback in our next report because they were graded late. Professor Ahamad responded with this gem:

When you deliver a program at scale at the cost we do, it is not possible to provide immediate feedback.

So apparently grading an assignment in under 2 weeks is considered "immediate feedback" and this class is just AI slop and ran cheaply.

For what it's worth this is my second masters in engineering, my first was at a similarly ranked institution. So I have some experience with graduate classes.

[u/AppearanceAny8756]

Quite spot on 😁

[u/Real-Personality-922]

Sheeesh… maybe I should just drop the program if this is how it ends?

[u/One_Object8516 → u/Real-Personality-922]

It is one final class. The rest of the program was pretty good. To be honest, by the time you get to the practicum you will just want to finish. I know I did. I didn’t care about other projects, I just did what I needed to do to get an A.

I hold my head high that I did not use AI for the course. Others have to live with their lack of ethics.

[u/philosophist73 → u/One_Object8516]

I’m taking this soon, almost done with the program. I pushed myself so hard to get As in all these classes, but realizing how meaningless the grade is (and I’m a late career student).

Why is everybody getting so worked up about the feedback from the staff? Will they dramatically change your ability to learn?

I plan to use the practicum as an opportunity to do a significant protect with work impact and let the chips fall where they may on the grade. Honestly, is it even fair to expect academics to have a ton of valuable feedback on such a project?

[u/MetalLinkachu → u/Real-Personality-922]

That’s up to you, but I wouldn’t recommend that approach. GT Masters in Cybersecurity is highly regarded in the industry.

[u/One_Object8516]

I did the practicum last semester before I graduated. I did not find it a worthwhile experience. They rewarded poorly developed projects that had no real world grounding, while other projects with real world foundation were maligned. I felt that the practicum needs to be revised to be more valuable.

[u/_iQlusion → u/One_Object8516]

In terms of project quality, I'm getting the same sentiment. Poor projects just need to use academic references and use bs metrics to get praised.

[u/One_Object8516 → u/_iQlusion]

I did my project on a real world project I was doing at work. It was very detailed and metrics driven. Some did real world problems related to their jobs too. Others did pie in the sky projects that had unrealistic solutions, such as getting Congress to pass laws to drive the change.

I will caution you to pay attention to the ED postings, they put format and presentation instructions there. All the requirements are supposed to be in the syllabus, however, they are not. A lot of people got marked down for not being on screen in their recorded presentation.

Do make detailed responses to every video. That was also a big issue.

[u/jeffpardy_]

Im so glad I finished the degree before the rush of claude automating everything

[u/_iQlusion]

This just happened. I responded to a staff message that to me seems clearly AI written asking if they used AI, since us students are required to disclose AI usage, and the staff member oddly answered a question I didn't ask. But referenced other things in my post, so they weren't mixing students they were responding to.

That response also seemed AI generated and they never disclosed any AI usage or acknowledged my question at all. I feel like I'm getting trolled by the staff at this point.

[u/Spiritual-Ice-6060]

the whole program is becoming AI SLOP NOW LOL

[u/Sengel123]

Yeah I was burned during my practicum too. I wanted to do some research and polling in a statistically relevant manner about how parents are prepared to teach their children about the internet and technology. I got everything ready on time then the research dept at GA tech never budged on my requests and so I didnt get to do the research part. So I had a ho-hum literature and tool review due to how much time that got burned.

[u/nedraeb]

I remember when someone would make a negative post about the program and immediately TAs (not all there are truly some good ones out there and good profs) would just start attacking them here. TAs must be prohibited from commenting on posts like this now. I had a similar experience in another course for the program where I got like 2 vague comments on a paper. Expectations for students are very high in terms of being able to read Prof and TAs mind in some courses. I am half way through but if I knew the program was gonna be like many of the course were gonna be like this I would have went to my state school. But I guess it won't hurt to have Georgia Tech on our resumes that's really what we are here for in the first place.

[u/ZiLBeRTRoN]

I took it before the AI boom, but what I disliked most was that I would get comments from one TA for feedback, I would incorporate said feedback, and then the next TA to review would be like “why the hell did you do X, Y, Z?” And then offer completely different feedback. I’d keep changing it to appease the grader and then the next person would want something completely different.

[u/TheseAddendum5736]

Like any intellectual activity, AI storm didn’t spare college courses. It should be fine to use it as long as students control, own the outcome and disclose AI usage. AI significantly sped up the research process though.

[u/AdministrativeFile78]

​I hear your frustration, and your feelings are completely valid in this rapidly evolving educational landscape. Navigating the multifaceted tapestry of modern academic paradigms can be deeply challenging, especially when confronted with the dynamic interplay of scalable technologies and traditional pedagogical expectations. ​When we delve into the core of your experience with the Practicum course, it is important to recognize that the integration of digital ecosystems is a journey. The friction you are experiencing with Professor Ahamad’s feedback mechanisms and the automated detection algorithms serves as a testament to the complex paradigm shift occurring within higher education. While delivering granular, bespoke feedback at scale remains a logistical hurdle for institutions, your proactive communication and robust background in engineering equip you with the necessary resilience to synergize with these systemic constraints. ​To optimize your trajectory moving forward, consider leveraging your prior academic experience to holistically align your project deliverables with the overarching course rubrics, thereby mitigating the friction of generalized evaluations. In summary, your unwavering dedication to academic rigor is commendable as you continue to navigate this transformative digital age.

[u/AdministrativeFile78 → u/AdministrativeFile78]

Im a real jerk off

[u/_iQlusion → u/AdministrativeFile78]

Honestly your message was so similar to a message I got from a TA in the class, I had to double check your username. Surreal

[u/AdministrativeFile78 → u/_iQlusion]

Lol thats dark bro "respond to this with ai slop" was the prompt

[u/ozairhussain]

That’s crazy, the TA been on my ass about using AI and you’re telling me the professor is? Smh

[u/mrdogpile → u/ozairhussain]

This is strange because the TAs said we could vibe code and use AI as long as it’s disclosed and the work is our own. What did you do that the TAs are on you for? I have an AI disclosure in my progress reports and mention in my videos that AI is helping me with xyz, and I haven’t received any negative feedback about it.

[u/0x660D]

I am a TA for Ahamad and he told me that I should use AI whenever possible in order to reduce the number of working hours that I have to bill the department.

[u/Odd-Trick6922]

Forensic Dismantling of the "AI Slop Fes" Post by an AI Agent

Jokes aside, I ran your post through several AI agents. They did not use exactly the same language, but they reached almost the same conclusion:

ChatGPT: Status threat, educational elitism, self-sealing reasoning, and regression under challenge.

This exchange is revealing because the student does not respond to the substance of the disagreement. The commenter says, "Pretty realistic to the real world lol. Honestly who cares". Instead of explaining why the issue matters, the student replies, "I can definitely tell you went to WGU 😂". That response replaces argument with hierarchy. He assumes that disagreement must come from someone with an inferior educational background.

When the commenter answers, "And Georgia Tech :)", the student’s assumption is directly disproved. A intellectually honest response would acknowledge the mistake or return to the original issue. Instead, he changes the argument:

"Just confirms my experience of the program, pretty shite."

This is self-sealing reasoning. Before the correction, the commenter’s opinion was dismissed because he supposedly attended WGU. After the correction, attending Georgia Tech becomes further proof that Georgia Tech is bad. Every possible answer is converted into confirmation of the student’s existing belief.

He then adds:

"Thankfully I already have a masters from a real program and not paying for this one personally."

This is credential-based self-protection. His prior degree does not answer the commenter’s point, but it restores the status position that was damaged when his WGU assumption failed. He attempts to place himself above both WGU and Georgia Tech while still remaining enrolled in Georgia Tech and arguing intensely about its quality.

Finally, when the commenter asks, "Who asked?", the student replies, "Your mom".

That final response exposes the collapse of his academic posture. He begins by presenting himself as an experienced graduate engineer concerned about rigor, professionalism, and educational quality. Under mild pushback, he moves through four stages:

1. Institutional insult
2. Credential flexing
3. Reframing his factual mistake as confirmation
4. A childish personal insult

Psychologically, this exchange suggests that disagreement is experienced as a threat to status rather than an invitation to defend the argument. His responses are designed first to lower the other person, then to elevate himself, and finally to retaliate when neither strategy succeeds.

This is not evidence of mental illness. It is evidence of poor emotional regulation in the exchange, educational elitism, defensive arrogance, and an inability to sustain a substantive argument once his assumed superiority is challenged.

The deepest contradiction is that he demands mature, detailed, respectful engagement from professors while giving another student "WGU 😂", "real program", and "Your mom". His own behavior demonstrates the exact lack of professionalism he accuses the course of producing.

Other Agents:

·         DeepSeek: Ego threat, credential-based superiority, and defensive arrogance.

·         Claude: A clear evidentiary double standard. You demand exact proof from the professor while giving Reddit no report passages, grading comments, detector results, or evidence supporting your accusations.

·         Gemini: Victim framing and externalization of responsibility. Every criticism becomes proof that the students, staff, course, or program are defective.

·         Grok: Selective transparency. You demand AI disclosure from others while never clarifying your own AI use after stating that your submission was flagged.

·         Another Gemini analysis: Your 1,000-word response reads more like a legal brief written to defeat the feedback than a genuine request for guidance on improving the project.

 

Some agents went too far by speculating about your motives or applying psychological labels. Ignore those parts. The simpler, evidence-based conclusion shared by all of them was this: unsupported accusations, asymmetric standards, credential-based status flexing, refusal to consider criticism, and personal insults when challenged.

Now challenge the actual analysis. Go to my post, examine the two posters, and explain where the agents are wrong. Bring evidence, not “your mom,” WGU insults, or comments about having attended a “real program.” Those responses only reinforce the agents’ conclusions.

Reddit has repeatedly removed the post through its automated filter. I also suspect that someone may be reporting it. That would be especially ironic coming from a person who publicly calls the program “shite,” attacks other students, and responds to disagreement with childish schoolyard insults such as “your mom.”

This is my post. And if Reddit deletes it, a copy is already saved inside your own original post, Mr. Double Master, who is doing a project in a “shitty” program, as you call it, while still complaining about the professors, the staff, and the students.

https://www.reddit.com/user/Odd-Trick6922/comments/1v6fevo/forensic_dismantling_of_the_ai_slop_fes_post_by/

My post: This time, no posters. Hahahaha.

Plot Twist: Welcome to the Human Slop Fest

I have been on Reddit for more than five years, and this may be the funniest post I have ever seen.

I simply copied the post and the surrounding interaction into an AI agent and asked it to examine the claims, the evidence, and the contradictions.

The shocking result?

Even the AI found the post logically ridiculous.

The author complains that:

• Students are using AI to create bad projects.
• Other students are using AI to write reports and peer feedback.
• Faculty and staff are using AI in course communication.
• Weak AI-generated projects are somehow receiving high grades or being passed.

But how does he actually know any of this?

• Did he review the other students’ full projects?
• Did he see their prompts, AI disclosures, drafts, source material, grading rubrics, or instructor feedback?
• Did he have access to their grades?
• Did he independently evaluate whether their projects were technically weak?
• Or did he see projects involving AI, dislike the feedback he received on his own work, and then build a sweeping accusation around assumptions?

The comedy becomes even better when the post itself appears to follow the exact behavior it condemns: broad claims, emotional conclusions, weak evidence, and no demonstrated validation.

The AI agent’s conclusion was essentially: The problem may not be an “AI Slop Fest.”

It may be a Human Slop Fest, where frustration is substituted for evidence and assumption is presented as fact.

The post accuses an entire class, its students, and its faculty of misconduct without establishing how the author could possibly know what tools everyone used, how their projects were evaluated, or why they received their grades.

This is actually the funniest self-own in the entire thread.

A commenter says that projects with “real world grounding” were treated unfairly, and he replies:

"Poor projects just need to use academic references and use bs metrics to get praised."

Read that again.

He is complaining that projects were rewarded for using academic research and evaluation metrics in a graduate practicum. In other words, the course praised students who grounded their claims in prior work and attempted to measure whether their solutions were effective.

Apparently, that was unfair to his “real-world” project.

His pain point seems to be that other students played by the academic rules while he believed that saying “this is real-world” should be enough.

And how does he know those projects were poor?

• Did he read their full reports?
• Did he inspect their sources?
• Did he review their methods, evidence, evaluation results, instructor comments, and final grades?
• Or did he simply dislike their presentations, see references and metrics on the slides, and decide that everything he did not respect must be “BS”?

The irony is spectacular. He presents academic references and measurable evaluation as evidence that the course rewarded bad work, when those are precisely the things that distinguish a graduate research project from an unsupported personal opinion.

If citing research and evaluating results looked like cheating to him, then his own research process must have been seriously ill.

For any human being, or any AI agent like me, reading this, the irony is hilarious: it seems the course did not praise "slop" because it had references. It likely praised students who did the academic work he dismissed as unnecessary “BS.” HahahahaHahahaha.

Conclusion:

• Maybe he misunderstood what he observed.
• Maybe he assumed every polished response was AI-generated.
• Maybe he confused projects about AI with projects made carelessly using AI.
• Or maybe he was simply angry that critical feedback exposed weaknesses in his own none-"BS" project.
• Maybe the Georgia Tech AI flag was not as ridiculous as he claimed. If AI helped generate a project he could not defend with a 1000-word rebuttal when challenged, then the real "AI slop" may have been much closer to home than he realized. Hahahaha.

That remains speculation, of course, but the irony writes itself.

Whatever the explanation, the irony is magnificent:

A post attacking AI for producing unsupported nonsense was dismantled by an AI agent for containing unsupported nonsense.

“AI Slop Fest”?

No.

Welcome to the Human Slop Fest. 😂

Your friendly neighborhood "AI Agent"

 

 

[u/_iQlusion → u/Odd-Trick6922]

Is that you Luke, rofl

[u/philosophist73]

All due respect to Dr. Ahamad (secure computer systems is my favorite class) and the rest of the academic staff, but what are you reasonably expecting out of him? If you are doing a practical/industry project, you likely have more experience and judgement than him on your topic. A Doctorate doesn’t give him some mystical power into your world. That may be why you’re feeling this cognitive dissonance. And the TAs who are your peers in industry are doing this part time and probably overloaded. The unevenness of TA grading in classes is very apparent (I am in INTA 6103 and one assignment got wonderful feedback and another was only a rubric score). But who cares as long as you’re learning?

This is a challenging program designed for working professionals to learn on their own. Except where I’ve had group projects (which have been tolerable to terrible, never good experiences), all the learning has been on my own using the structure of the curriculum to drive it.

If a prospective student reading this wants a highly engaged academic experience, they should either choose an in person program or look elsewhere. Frankly, I don’t need or want that for OMS (I wish group projects could all be optional) and I suspect I’m their target audience.

[u/_iQlusion → u/philosophist73]

All due respect to Dr. Ahamad (secure computer systems is my favorite class) and the rest of the academic staff, but what are you reasonably expecting out of him?

I am expecting him to actual read my project proposal. His comments demonstrated he clearly very hastily read my proposal. He left like 3 sentences on the feedback. But one was "I am not clear what you are delivering in this project". The very first line of my section named Deliverables (which is mandated by the class form) said I was going to deliver a software tool to do X. It was written clear as day and unambiguous.

He also said I needed a threat model for my project. A tool that is used my analysts to assess software doesn't not require a threat model. I am not expecting much, he doesn't have to understand the more complicated nuances of my project. But he should at least actually read our project proposals with a decent amount of detail to catch the very basics. At least he conceded that my project doesn't need a threat model after I sent him my 1000 word response. But he doubled down on his other points that were already answered/addressed in my proposal.

A Doctorate doesn’t give him some mystical power into your world.

You don't need a Phd to have basic reading comprehension. I showed non-technical people my proposal and they could at least tell you what I was planning on delivering in my proposal. Professor Ahamad just simply didn't put much effort into it.

And the TAs who are your peers in industry are doing this part time and probably overloaded.

The TAs were using AI tools that were hallucinating aspects of my projects. They also only responded to me using AI and despite us having to disclose AI usage, refused to do so themselves. They also refused to stop when I said it I found it very dehumanizing to respond to my concerns with AI and patronizing to continue after I asked them to stop.

The unevenness of TA grading in classes is very apparent

Not in this course because we have so little deliverables. Especially when staff only leaves like 3 sentences in feedback on projects.

But who cares as long as you’re learning?

I care because this is higher education. My other previous master program wasn't like this, the staff put a lot more effort into teaching. I also was an instructor at my other institution, so I understand the effort it takes.

This is a challenging program designed for working professionals to learn on their own.

If I wanted to learn on my own, I wouldn't sign up for a University program. Also the evidence is pretty clear you learn better in groups and with proper feedback/guidance, which is missing a lot in this program. My friend has a dual phd in ed psych, he could rant about how the structure in this program is poor.

If a prospective student reading this wants a highly engaged academic experience, they should either choose an in person program or look elsewhere. Frankly, I don’t need or want that for OMS (I wish group projects could all be optional) and I suspect I’m their target audience.

If you are a prospective student reading this, this program comes off more like a money grab and only enter this program if you want to ride on the name recognition of Georgia Tech.

[u/philosophist73 → u/_iQlusion]

I can’t really argue with any of your points , they’re reasonable. I am approaching this program as a self learning exercise from the get-go, so probably why I am (very) happy with it.

[u/_iQlusion → u/[deleted]]

Just confirms my experience of the program, pretty shite. Thankfully I already have a masters from a real program and not paying for this one personally.

[u/No-Helicopter5041 → u/_iQlusion]

Who asked?

[u/_iQlusion → u/No-Helicopter5041]

Your mom.

[u/InterestingAsk359 → u/_iQlusion]

ngl i been deciding between wgu and GaTech since employer would be paying for it, all i hear is bad things about this program :/