>performing badly under pressure is not a thing in your world
No need to be rude.
Pressure presents different characteristics. Plus lecturers would be working with failing students so would understand the difference between pressure and cheating.
> My point was cheaters don't need to train on their corpus. That's why it's zero effort. You keep trying to wave that away
My entire point was that most cheats wouldn't bother training their corpus!
With the greatest of respect, have you actually read my comments?
> My entire point was that most cheats wouldn't bother training their corpus!
Good, because they don't need a custom corpus to cheat with LLMs with most normal teachers.
And if a teacher reduced your grade saying you are using LLM because your style doesn't match you just report them for it and say you were trying a new style (teacher would probably will be wrong 50% of the time anyway)
> Good, because they don't need a custom corpus to cheat with LLMs with most normal teachers.
I think you're underestimating the capabilities of normal teachers. And I say this as someone who a large percentage of their family are teachers.
Also this topic was about using LLMs to spot LLMs. Not teachers spotting LLMs.
> And if a teacher reduced your grade saying you are using LLM because your style doesn't match you just report them for it and say you were trying a new style (teacher would probably will be wrong 50% of the time anyway)
You're drifting off topic again. I'm not going to discuss handling false positives because that's going to come down the policies of each institution.
performing badly under pressure is not a thing in your world
> My point was that cheaters wouldn’t bother training on their own corpus. You keep pushing the conversation away from that.
My point was cheaters don't need to train on their corpus. That's why it's zero effort. You keep trying to wave that away
> That’s how literally no good teacher would ever approach the subject.
Now we only need to eliminate bad teachers