Raw LLM — Corpus Dashboard

Look up by comment ID

Random samples — click to inspect

in This is the kind of resource that shortens the gap between consuming AI content … 7460180558644… in Thanks for emphasizing "a process of shared discernment.” In that context, it is… 7465042436466… in I hope they found a reliable Ai that doesn’t hallucinate at all. Sounds like a m… 7464637181991… in I have to say: AI makes me often feel "very smart". Especially when it acknowled… 7467511393110… in Honestly, Day 3 is where the real magic happens. Banning words like "delve" or "… 7465357273201… in Unfortunately, even before this AI has appeared, many ( perhaps most ) students … 7464581129107… in I am afraid it is a little too late. It is naive to think we can go back and sta… 7464911707312… in @Demis Hassabis You admit the need for "safety in agentic systems." But you are … 7463325330771…

Comment

Sabrina N. I don't think there is any one solution. I don't think bans and the use of AI detection are the way to go. They are not meaningfully enforceable or fit for purpose, respectively. It's clear at this stage that assessment needs to change. The days of relying on artefacts as stand-ins for learning are probably over (and that has been well overdue for some time, as someone who has been investigating contract cheating for years). If for some reason a university wants to use a report or an essay for the purposes of assessment, they can either, a) use it as a purely formative exercise (remove the value of cheating), b) watch the student write it, or c) make the assessment a face-to-face conversation about the document rather than the document itself. Ultimately, universities need to be spending more time having conversations with students about their learning, and these conversations should be the assessment.

LinkedIn General AI Discourse Integrity Investigator & Data Scientist | Assur… 2026-05-28T04:2…

Coding Result

Dimension	Value
Primary value	human_autonomy
Secondary value	none
Alignment target	individual_users
Stance	demanding
Emotion	approval
Value justification	The speaker emphasizes the need for universities to focus on conversations with students about their learning, implying a desire for human judgment and autonomy in the assessment process.
Target justification	The speaker is primarily concerned with the impact of AI on individual students and their learning experience, as evident from their suggestions for alternative assessment methods.
Coded at	2026-06-11T08:26:26Z

Raw LLM Response

```json
{
  "value_primary": "human_autonomy",
  "value_secondary": "none",
  "target": "individual_users",
  "stance": "demanding",
  "emotion": "approval",
  "value_justification": "The speaker emphasizes the need for universities to focus on conversations with students about their learning, implying a desire for human judgment and autonomy in the assessment process.",
  "target_justification": "The speaker is primarily concerned with the impact of AI on individual students and their learning experience, as evident from their suggestions for alternative assessment methods."
}
```

Raw LLM Responses