Just to say that we did not actually ‘hoodwink’ anyone! The paper states quite clearly which parts were written by us and which by ChatGPT. But I can see that this makes a better story – and we have enjoyed people’s surprise when they get to the big reveal! @ReubenShipway https://t.co/8shM0nT06K

— Debby Cotton (@ProfDcotton) March 19, 2023

There is literally zero reason to not replace the entirety of academia with ChatGPT.

It is smarter, less weird, and works for free.

The Guardian:

An academic paper entitled Chatting and Cheating: Ensuring Academic Integrity in the Era of ChatGPT was published this month in an education journal, describing how artificial intelligence (AI) tools “raise a number of challenges and concerns, particularly in relation to academic honesty and plagiarism”.

What readers – and indeed the peer reviewers who cleared it for publication – did not know was that the paper itself had been written by the controversial AI chatbot ChatGPT.

“We wanted to show that ChatGPT is writing at a very high level,” said Prof Debby Cotton, director of academic practice at Plymouth Marjon University, who pretended to be the paper’s lead author. “This is an arms race,” she said. “The technology is improving very fast and it’s going to be difficult for universities to outrun it.”

Cotton, along with two colleagues from Plymouth University who also claimed to be co-authors, tipped off editors of the journal Innovations in Education and Teaching International. But the four academics who peer-reviewed it assumed it was written by these three scholars.

Debby Cotton

For years, universities have been trying to banish the plague of essay mills selling pre-written essays and other academic work to any students trying to cheat the system. But now academics suspect even the essay mills are using ChatGPT, and institutions admit they are racing to catch up with – and catch out – anyone passing off the popular chatbot’s work as their own.

The Observer has spoken to a number of universities that say they are planning to expel students who are caught using the software.

Thomas Lancaster, a computer scientist and expert on contract cheating at Imperial College London, said many universities were “panicking”.

“If all we have in front of us is a written document, it is incredibly tough to prove it has been written by a machine, because the standard of writing is often good,” he said. “The use of English and quality of grammar is often better than from a student.”

They walked straight into that one.

It was kind of obvious someone would do something like this to them.

They’re very stupid and self-righteous people, the university people, and the world will be much better when we totally abolish these institutions and replace them with AI girlfriends.

If you want to see the future of Western scholarly tradition imagine fat sheboons incentivized by federal grants twerking to keep the attention of this classroom.

I remember two cliches from watching Hollywood movies as a kid:

1. The US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.
2. Crime doesn’t pay.

What a shock to learn now that both of these are false – if the terrorists are entitled people of color.

College Fix:

University of California Santa Cruz administrators recently agreed to meet to all four demands lodged by a black student group who commandeered a campus building and would not leave until their conditions were met.

After three days of occupation by students of Kerr Hall, Chancellor George Blumenthal agreed to give all black and Caribbean-identified students a 4-year housing guarantee to live in the Rosa Parks African American Themed House; bring back the building’s lounge; paint its exterior the “Pan-Afrikan colors” of red, green and black; and force all new incoming students to go through a mandatory diversity competency training.

The last time white people dared to hold state property hostage, they were simply asking for the right to graze the lands their families had used for generations without state interference. Feds proceeded to execute one of them in cold blood. Niggers, in contrast, get infinite moneys.

As these demands were met social media has been filled with celebration from SJWs, negro sympathizers and various other communist leaning folks:

"UC Santa Cruz agrees to all demands from black student group [African/Black Student Alliance]" YES! https://t.co/27qkPeLTfg

— nick lally (@nicklally) May 9, 2017

Black students at UC Santa Cruz ain't playin.

The Afrikan/Black Student Alliance took over Kerr Hall on May 2,… https://t.co/GVF0ezexM2

— PushBlack (@wearepushblack) May 9, 2017

Good news from UC #SantaCruz: Uni admin gives in to demands of African/Black Student Alliance: https://t.co/iE8HIGUO9C#1world1struggle

— ISM_News (@ISM030) May 7, 2017

@PrisonPlanet UC Santa Cruz will paint Rosa Parks student housing Pan Afrikan colors & all freshmen must take diversity competency training. Represent!

— GJames (@GeeJamesFL) May 7, 2017

Despite having all of their demands met they are now adding three more conditions they would like before the campus will be safe. This is blatant terrorism and it is reprehensible that the college is giving in to these animals.

The alliance’s three additional demands are that the university purchase a property “to serve as a low income housing cooperative for historically disadvantaged students,” that the university “allocate $100,000” for Santa Cruz’s “SOMeCA” student organization support department, and that the university create either a Black Studies department or  a Black Studies Minor or Major.

The group promised that, if their demands are not met, UC Santa Cruz will “force [them] to have to take what [they] know to be in [their] best interest to Reclaim.”

They use the term “reclaim” to try to sugar coat what they are doing when it is really a hostage situation involving university property.  The fact that these demands keep getting met is setting a very dangerous precedent that could lead to full scale revolt at all colleges.  It is highly disturbing to think about what could possibly come next after these demands are met. Here is their explanation for why they use the term “Reclaim”:

As for the student demonstrators, they reject the term “occupation” to describe their “reclamation” actions, claiming: “We are pushing back against the language of ‘occupation’ in recognition of the largely white-centric and fairly recent ‘Occupy Movement.’ We are pushing back against the language of ‘occupation’ in recognition of the very real settler occupations that are hxstorical [sic] and ongoing, such as the European colonization and occupation of ‘The Americas,’ as well as the current context of occupation in Palestine.”

Afrikan Black Student Alliance at UC Santa Cruz Launches Demands for Institutional Change. https://t.co/JnCFB6Dukw pic.twitter.com/7zqHI2fFOp

— #JailsFargo (@ABlackCoalition) March 7, 2017

Imagine what would happen if a group of white students took over any university property. SWAT teams and possibly even the National Guard would likely be called in to take care of the situation.

This whole thing is very reminiscent of an incident last year at the University of Michigan. A black student group at that university called “Students4Justice” demanded a segregated area of campus to “organize and do social justice work.” By segregated they mean specifically “no whites allowed.”

You can see the terrorist demands here straight from the Afrikan Black Student Alliance themselves.

Be sure to let the university administration know what you think of them giving in to terrorist demands. You can call them at (831) 459-0111. Also make sure to leave them a nice review on google and any other rating and comment sites that they are listed on.

The integration of the races is about destroying White exceptionalism and dragging us down to the level of pre-civilized savages.

Recently, universities have been undergoing constant changes to their standards in order to make them more accessible to low IQ blacks, who are, on the whole, incapable of competing with Whites on an intellectual level, at least to the same degree that we are incapable of competing with them on the basketball court.

Strangely, there has been no attempt to make basketball more accessible to White people.

The latest sickening example of the collapse of the Western educational establishment in the face of overwhelming “diversification” is in the realm of the traditional debate tournament. In order to make it more accessible for blacks, they are allowing teams to refuse to address the issues of the debate, and instead cry about racism to rap instead of debating, or to use profanity and refuse to follow the standardized rules.

From the Atlantic:

On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president’s war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.

Ah yes, the debate is about the geopolitical ramifications of unlimited presidential war powers, but nevermind that – if you are black, all debates are really about the emotions of black people.

Does complaining about your hurt feelings as a black person really “attack the premise” of whether or not the President should have unlimited war powers? Ah well, it doesn’t matter anyway, as White people care more about the emotions of black people than anything else, ever, so you cannot lose a national championship simply because you did not discuss the topic of the debate.

In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like “nigga authenticity” and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee’s rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. “Fuck the time!” he yelled. His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, had been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before, and cited this personal trauma as evidence for his case against the government’s treatment of poor African-Americans.

Wait, so it was two black teams arguing about how badly black people are treated when they were supposed to be debating presidential war powers?

And they used rap and profanity and refused to adhere by the clock?

Is that what I just read?

Does the Atlantic have no shame at all?

This year wasn’t the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.

Ah, so here we have precedent. Debate tournaments now exist exclusively for the purpose of soothing the feelings of blacks, the original purpose having been thrown out completely. A black can just go up and start talking about how the whole concept of debating is racist, and he wins by default.

How nice it must be to be black, as your performance and ability is judged exclusively based on the color of your skin.

And what is the next step here? If you can win a debate tournament by refusing to debate the topic and simply claiming that the concept of a debate is racist, can you win a math tournament by saying that math is racist? Can you win a scientific research competition by saying that scientific research is racist?

I see no way that this rule of “black people can win by sayig things are unfair to them” cannot apply to all fields of academia.

Tournament participants from all backgrounds say they have found some of these debate strategies offensive. Even so, the new style has received mainstream acceptance, sympathy, and awards.

Yes, you mean racists find it offensive. Who else but a racist would think black people should not be given awards simply for crying that people are mean to them, or that they think maybe people are being mean to them.

Joe Leeson Schatz, Director of Speech and Debate at Binghamton University, is encouraged by the changes in debate style and community. “Finally, there’s a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others,” he said. “Arguments don’t necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experience.”

Translation: it is racist to expect university students to be literate. What with multiculturalism and all, throwing out literacy as a necessary prerequisite of academic success is the only way to remove White privilege.

But other teams who have prepared for a traditional policy debate are frustrated when they encounter a meta-debate, or an alternative stylistic approach in competition. These teams say that the pedagogical goals of policy debate are not being met—and are even being undermined. Aaron Hardy, who coaches debate at Northwestern University, is concerned about where the field is headed. “We end up … with a large percentage of debates being devoted to arguing about the rules, rather than anything substantive,” he wrote on a CEDA message board last fall.

Indeed, to prevail using the new approach, students don’t necessarily have to develop high-level research skills or marshal evidence from published scholarship. They also might not need to have the intellectual acuity required for arguing both sides of a resolution. These skills—together with a non-confrontational presentation style—are considered crucial for success in fields like law and business.

Translation: this new form of “debate” does not require literacy.

Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. “Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs,” he said.

Whoa, whoa, whoa – allowing black people to rap and curse and refuse to discuss the issue of the debate, instead complaining about their feelings, is uncivilized?

It looks like we’ve got ourselves a racist on our hands here.

To counter this trend, Hardy and his allies want to create a “policy only” space in which traditional standards for debate will be enforced. However, this is nearly impossible to do within the two major debate associations, CEDA and the National Debate Tournament (NDT), as they are governed by participants and have few conduct enforcement mechanisms. For instance, while CEDA and NDT’s institutional anti-harassment policy would normally prohibit the term “nigga” as it was used at the recent Indiana University tournament finals, none of the judges penalized the competitors that used it. In fact, those debaters took home prizes.

14 schools expressed interest in sending debaters to Hardy’s proposed alternative tournament, scheduled to occur last month. But after word got out that a group of mostly white teams from elite universities were trying to form their own league, Hardy and his supporters were widely attacked on Facebook and other online forums. Ultimately the competition didn’t happen, purportedly because of logistical issues with the hotel venue. Nonetheless, Hardy wrote in an email that a “toxic climate” has precluded even “strong supporters of ‘policy debate’ from “publicly attach[ing] their name to anything that might get them called racist or worse.”

Yes, how dare this racist scumbag try to hold a new forum following traditional academic standards.

Korey Johnson, the reigning CEDA champion from Towson University, was one of the students who took offense to the alternative tournament. “Separating debate is a bad move,” she said. “With the increase in minority participation came a range of different types of argument and perspectives, not just from the people who are in debate, but the kind of scholarship we bring in.” Her debate partner Ameena Ruffin agreed: “For them to tell us that we can’t bring our personal experience, it would literally be impossible. Not just for black people—it is true of everyone. We are always biased by who we are in any argument.”

Translation: Rap battles, profanity and crying about your feelings are now “scholarship.”

Get used to it.

Liberal law professors have been making this point for decades. “Various procedures—regardless of whether we’re talking about debate formats or law—have the ability to hide the subjective experiences that shape these seemingly ‘objective’ and ‘rational’ rules,” said UC Hastings Law School professor Osagie Obasogie, who teaches critical race theory. “This is the power of racial subordination: making the viewpoint of the dominant group seem like the only true reality.”

So, this is what’s happening. In order to accommodate low-IQ minorities, the academic sphere is throwing out any and all standards of procedure, making it possible for illiterates to succeed. The Atlantic spells this out for you in no uncertain terms, simply adding the spin of “oh no, don’t worry, this is good.”

Here is one of the debates with these blacks.  The video is 4 hours long, but just skip through to any part, and you’ll see what the deal here is.

It is almost unbelievable that this is actually, literally happening.

The larger problem is that this applies not only to our institutions of learning, but the whole of society. As we continue to be bullied into accepting the idea that blacks are the same as us, but also in order to be the same we must change the rules and make it easier for them, all of society is being dragged down to the lowest conceivable level.

Detroit is the future of everything.