As AI becomes increasingly [S]ubtle
Lately, it's not often I refer back to my 2002 dissertation, "Subtle Technology and Student Writers: The Ambient Influence of Technological Myths on Communicators," but in the diss I had a core idea that's relevance might be re-emerging, a concept I described as Subtle T(echnology); I'll define it here very briefly as "a theoretical transformation digital technology might undergo that leads to complete dependence on these machines." The transformation occurs "when five interdependent traits of digital technology are fully realized: ubiquity, transparency, dependency, interconnectedness, and insubstantiality" (1).
With the explosion of AI use, I think Subtle T provides a valuable lens for viewing this technology, which I could argue has been integrating itself into our activities in ways that meet the traits above.
Of course, I was always a Writing Studies/Comp Rhet researcher and practitioner, so in the diss I described how Subtle T functioned in writing instructional scenarios.
Recently, I had a situation in a course in which I thought a student might have plagiarized language in parts of a project. I didn't think this student had malevolent intent, but some of the writing seemed inauthentic when compared with their other writing, particularly informal writing, in the course.
My course AI policy encouraged productive use of LLMs, so I was more interested in a constructive dialogue than a wrist-slapping--or worse.
When we met, I pointed out passages I felt were inauthentic, and I said while I didn't think it was material deliberately clipped from other sites or sources, it appeared to be AI-generated text.
We had a good conversation, but the student was nonplussed as I talked about using AI and when eventually asked straight-up if they used AI tools. They told me, equally straight-up, no. The student said while they had indeed used material they found in Google searches to help develop the project, they were "just using Google," not AI.
Well, of course, if you are "just using Google" right now, the first "hit" is an "AI Overview," marked with a "sparkle icon." The student was surprised by this and told me, and after our discussion I believed it, that they didn't think of the results of Google searches as AI, despite the "sparkle icon."
This to me was another good example of how we'll have to keep up in our courses with AI. Many teachers are growing accustomed to handling the results of prompt-based AI use: We feel confident that students who use prompts and submit the subsequent text from LLMs are overtly plagiarizing. But embedded tools?--we'll have to sharpen definitions. Grammarly is one thing. AI built into Google searches is another.
I almost feel that we might have to broaden our perspective and be careful not only of students using AI but of AI using them: Their common behaviors may be co-opted in ways that are ubiquitous, transparent, dependent, interconnected, and insubstantial. They will notice less and less.
Maybe it's time for me to renew my efforts to get that diss published.
Note:
1) From page 1 of the diss, which I completed at Temple University.
Labels: AI, Google Overview, plagiarism, Subtle T, Subtle Technology