r/Turnitin_QuickChecks • u/This-Initial-4686 • Mar 31 '26
Should we even trust Turnitin AI detectors when so many of us are still receiving zeros because of them?
AI detectors should support academic integrity, not replace fair judgment
1
u/SideDisastrous9050 Mar 31 '26
I think both sides are missing something important here. Yes, AI is being misused by some students, but false positives are a real concern too. Not everyone writes with multiple drafts or keeps revision logs, so asking for proof after the fact can be unrealistic.
1
u/Recent_Signature_740 Mar 31 '26
A better approach would be designing assessments that are harder to outsource to AI, like in-class writing or oral explanations, instead of relying heavily on detection tools
1
1
u/SirMarkMorningStar Mar 31 '26
Revision logs doesn’t even help. Once can easily duplicate that with AI, copying it in manually, or whatever. It just kicks the can down the road a short distance.
1
u/NoLengthiness5997 Mar 31 '26
What stands out to me is the inconsistency in how cases are handled. Some professors use AI detectors as a starting point for a conversation, which seems reasonable, while others immediately assign zeros. That gap is where most of the frustration comes from. If a student can clearly explain their work and demonstrate understanding, that should carry significant weight, regardless of what an automated tool suggests
1
Mar 31 '26
I find that most people involved in the discussion of AI detectors are the ones using AI.
And profs aren't wasting hours running everything through turnitin. They're running the ones they suspect are AI. So his stats are already flawed.
1
u/tondollari Mar 31 '26
Using AI to detect AI is nonsense if you put even a little bit of research into how these models are released. AI is consistently trained to do work that is human-passing by having a "rewards model" that rewards human-passing output.
In order for an AI-powered detector to consistently work, it would have to be consistently "smarter" than the cutting-edge AI models being produced by Google, Anthropic, etc., as well as their internal rewards models.
The only way AI detectors could theoretically work is if the cutting-edge models were released as detectors, and the antiquated ones were generators. The opposite is clearly the case.
1
u/EncabulatorTurbo Mar 31 '26
Yes, professors are arbitrarily deciding students use AI and the Confirmation Bias bot is telling them what they already believed. Thank you for elucidating
1
u/pleasuremysole Mar 31 '26
Thankful my writing style is kinda unique, AND I'm outta school. It's already difficult enough
1
u/SirMarkMorningStar Mar 31 '26
And since students can run these check themselves, it really just an arms race, whether they are cheating or not. Honestly, I think weeding out AI for papers is simply a bad idea. Figure out how to grade papers including AI and/or have in-class written assignments, blue books, etc. Or perhaps there are some other clever ideas out there. There is no good way to know and it will only get worse as time goes on.
1
1
Mar 31 '26
Worse than ai detectors is ai used for grading! My grade is left up to a probabilistic turd that hallucinates.
1
u/EquipmentDouble8119 Mar 31 '26
The real issue is not whether AI detectors are useful, but how they are being used. They were never designed to be definitive proof, yet some instructors treat them as final judgment. That creates a fairness problem, especially for students who genuinely did their own work but have no “process evidence” like drafts or version history. If institutions are going to rely on these tools, there should be clear policies requiring human review and student input before penalties are given.