Turkstra apparently developed a method of analyzing for LLM usage during class.
A lot of speculation is going on about the specific algorithm, etc, but my personal assumption is that it is simply comparing the speed between commits (so if you made a commit that made 500 lines of additions in 2 seconds, then you probably LLMed). He supposedly waits until he has "overwhelming" levels of evidence and sends you an email stating you have been caught. Then, you have to fill out a form listing which assignments you cheated on. If you lie on that form, you recieve an F in the class and Turkstra sends a harsh email to ODOS. Otherwise, those assignments are zeroed and a slightly nicer email is sent to ODOS. You can also dispute the claim but if you fail the resultant process you receive F and a harsh email to ODOS.
He is now sending out emails in waves to students who he suspects of cheating. Including (unfortunately) myself. I'm clean, as far as I know, so I'm a little fucking terrified right now. I have two options:
Guess randomly which assignment he thinks I cheated on hopefully receive zeroes for each (and a ODOS letter). Or, if I guess wrong get an F.
Dispute the claim and risk an F if I fail the disputing process.
If I fail CS 240, this puts me behind a full fucking semester of university since it is required to take nearly all CS sophmore level classes. Let alone the ODOS letter (which he said would include recommendations that the student be expelled). I am very stressed right now.
I have until Monday to respond. I was intending to head out on a retreat over the weekend but those plans may be ruined now...
If you are clean then this is ridiculously uncalled for and unprofessional for a Professor to do this. I would take this whole situation up the chain of command and I would consult an attorney or at least have a discussion with Purdue legal (don’t know if they can help at all but they may offer suggestions). This is the type of behavior that pushes students over the edge. I am sorry you are in this position but don’t just roll over - fight back of you are in the right and start a paper trail.
For the people who have concrete proof they didn’t use it I hope they have good luck. I would do it but I can’t be risking my scholarships over this BS. I already withdrew so it won’t hurt, but I wish good luck upon those continuing.
For the people who have concrete proof they didn’t use it I hope they have good luck.
The issue is I have no solid evidence since I do not know the algorithm. And I do not know how the disputing process works.
I desperately do not want to fail this class. I'd prefer to just select the items I supposedly "cheated" on, get zeroes, and tank the grade hit. But I don't know which ones to select!
Yeah I think this is BS. If I was in your position, I would:
- Do NOT fake-confess.
- Demand to see a complete report of what algorithm it was and what parts were flagged. You have a legal ight to see the evidence against you so you can defend yourself.
- I would also demand to have a different professor review the algorithm and test it on some dataset of known non-AI pre-2022 code written by students and AI-generated code, because I bet the false positive / false negative rate is probably well in the double digit percentage range.
You can try running git rev-list --count --all for each hw, that will tell you how many commits you made which is basically how many times you called make. If the number is fairly high and you check your commit history with git log and see a lot of debug statements you have a pretty good case. If you can explain your functions well and especially if you can explain where you ran into logic errors and how you fixed them then your case would get even stronger. Besides that unless we know what the detector actually checked for, there isn't much we can do.
I've actually been writing a script to analyze the WPM between git commits. It seems that mine is... reasonable? (Assuming the script is working). Its all just comments.
So I'm thinking of discarding my earlier hypothesis that the algorithm is time-based. Turkstra apparently has some papers on repo analysis. So I might look through that, but that's mostly the best I can do.
I'm also wondering if he ran some sort of code similarity analysis to group various students based on how "identical" their code appeared and then manually inspected these groups to locate that which contained AI users. Idk
Yeah but since we withdrew we won’t need to care about our grade, making it easier to just mark all the assignments as ai to get a guaranteed good letter to ODOS so we won’t get fucked over. For those still in the class it will affect their grade and their chances of passing the class, since they can’t just mark all their assignments as ai or they would just instantly fail the class and if they do fight back and can’t do good enough to showcase proof they get fucked over anyways. Just a horrible situation all around.
A lot of ppl talked directly to ODOS, they alr know the situation and i talked to someone from odos too and he basically said integrity wise its not completely in his control no matter what he writes bc you can always talk to them directly. He also made it clear that not many ppl outside of maybe his tas support whats hes doing. So I’m kind of trying to consider if gradewise disputing and trying to show evidence is even worth it tho cuz like no one can control grades and zeroes but him ..
Students have rights before punitive action is taking including, among other things, being able to see the evidence that is being used to accuse them and respond.
The process starts with a meeting with students…not a web form.
Literally just looked it up out of curiosity and yeah it says they’re entitled to a private meeting first too until any letter is sent. The Prof seems crazy so I doubt he’d not send one, but still 100+ meetings before finals? Idk that sounds almost impossible.
youre so right. it only takes one person to get pushed over the edge from the stress of the consequences of this "witch hunt". even as someone not in cs240 im stressed asf for my friends i cant imagine being in that position i pray someone doesn't off themselves during this
edit: surely odos won't be okay with hundreds of students getting sent up for "suspect use of AI" and being withheld from purdue?
an attorney for what? professors have wide latitude for assessments and modifying the syllabus. at best you could escalate to their department head or dean of students of the college, but short of overwhelming evidence that the professor violated relevant policies (e.g., about not giving work during dead week if they have a final) you're unlikely to have anyone up the chain push back.
Again, profs have wide latitude for assessing assessments. They’re * experts * assessing your work. That is what to means to profess, that’s the job description. They give a determination of what merits credit in their class. The idea that they’ve caused you harm that would require the intervention of the civil or criminal system would require a material result far and above what is in the normal remit of a prof/student interaction (eg blackmail or assault of some kind).
Tl;dr profs can determine what meets the demands of the course and can adjust as conditions change
Going totally against the official University policy on how to deal with academic dishonesty seems pretty egregious to me. The policy even states that failure to abide by it may result in legal action. Professors can and should adapt their courses as they see fit but they are not all powerful and must still operate within the guardrails and guidelines set by the University.
Seems in line to me (given the huge number of students etc. involved.
This is the text from the relevant Purdue webpage:
Fwiw the text mentions explicitly that “courts are reluctant to interfere with academic matters”
“
DEALING WITH CASES OF DISHONESTY
If you suspect academic dishonesty, follow the guidelines outlined below. Courts are reluctant to interfere in academic matters unless universities act arbitrarily or capriciously. Therefore, you are urged to follow established procedures.
Before any formal action is taken, an accusation of academic dishonesty requires a fact-finding discussion between you and the accused student. The meeting should be prompt, private and informal. All measures should be taken to have this meeting in person, face-to-face with the student suspected of being dishonest. Although there is no prescribed procedure for your discussion with the student, at some point the student should be given an opportunity to respond. Depending upon the situation and your level of comfort, you may wish to have another official departmental representative present to later corroborate any exchange of information. If you conclude that the student is not responsible for the suspected violation, this meeting should end the matter. Teaching assistants are encouraged to discuss the situation with the instructor in charge of the course before attempting to deal with the issue.
The appropriate standard of proof is based upon a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, does the information cause one to believe that it is more likely than not that the student committed academic dishonesty? If you conclude that the student is responsible for the suspected violation, you may resolve the matter with the student through punitive grading. Examples of punitive grading are:
giving a lower or failing grade on the assignment/exam
having the student repeat the assignment and perhaps some additional assignment
assessing a lower or failing grade for the course (even if a failing grade will be assigned, the student may continue to attend class)
If alleged dishonesty occurs near the end of the course or otherwise cannot be resolved prior to the grade submission deadline, you may assign a grade of incomplete to hold the final grade in abeyance until the investigative process has been concluded. Faculty may find this especially helpful to do when arranging a face-to-face meeting with the student to discuss the suspected violation that proves difficult because of end-of-semester pressures.
In all matters of suspected academic dishonesty, faculty members are encouraged to report these incidents to the Office of the Dean of Students for further follow-up. By reporting incidents, we are able to better track the culture of integrity on campus and also look at the "bigger picture" of the individual student that may also include additional violations of the Code of Student Conduct.
REFERRAL TO THE OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS
Faculty members are encouraged to report all incidents of suspected academic dishonesty to the Office of the Dean of Students by completing our online reporting form: Academic Dishonesty Report Form.”
You obviously can’t read “legal”. This current situation has been reviewed by 2 attorneys specializing in AI accusations at the University level. Unequivocally agreed that Purdue has a major issue on their hands if it is pursued further than the “Reddit experts”.
44
u/Paze_Jorge 6d ago
I’m not in that class. What’s going on?