So last week - I helped someone in a malpractice case involving AI - it was like a laundry list of no-nos. 1/n
First they had used an unsanctioned third party tool so when we asked what due diligence had been used to determine the validity of the tool there was no answer. 2/n
Then there was an attempt to switch it to a focus on questioning the academic had done in their office of the student. Was this done in line with their regulations and with notice? No it was a "got ya!" attempt so we quickly killed that off. 3/n
We were left with "quality of the work" but the grade was in line with previous grades so we got more silence to why that would be a factor. 4/n
This was all done on teams and as a "supporter" I couldn't speak but could advise them and just fed them question after question. 5/n
Got the whole thing dismissed - waste of everyone's time. 6/n
@Charlesknight Not a waste of everyone's time if it can be evidence of deep inadequacy of current procedures. And it's good that you were there, I worry more that there are instances where these questions are not asked.
@Charlesknight Did the institution concerned have clear and easily discoverable guidelines which were being ignored, or were staff concerned trying to 'muddle through' in the absence of guidance?