
AI Cheating is So Out of Hand In America's Schools That the Blue Books Are Coming Back
The Wall Street Journal recently did some digging and has discovered that sales of blue books have been climbing over the past year. Citing data from a number of large public universities, the newspaper notes that bulk purchases of the booklets have grown by leaps and bounds since ChatGPT's launch in late 2022:
Sales of blue books this school year were up more than 30% at Texas A&M University and nearly 50% at the University of Florida. The improbable growth was even more impressive at the University of California, Berkeley. Over the past two academic years, blue-book sales at the Cal Student Store were up 80%. Demand for blue books is suddenly booming again because they help solve a problem that didn't exist on campuses until now.
Surely those of us who came of age before the current one remember the blue book as an unfortunate staple of the pre-digital educational experience. I can certainly remember filling out my fair share of them in college, and I also remember them being no walk in the park. As a student, you're often given a very short amount of time to frantically scrawl an 'analytical' essay inside of one as a means of demonstrating to your professor your 'mastery' over a particular subject. I remember the pages being too small, the ruled lines being too large, and the general experience of using the dreaded booklets to be no fun.
Now, however, as AI tears through America's elite educational system, lobotomizing tomorrow's young leaders as it goes, could it be that blue books have been refashioned from a villain of the pre-AI age to a hero for our algorithmically-poisoned times? More and more, it seems like they're the dark knight that America's illiterate masses needs. The Journal notes that Roaring Spring Paper Products, the family-owned paper company that produces a majority of the blue books that are sold on college campuses, admits that the new AI era has ironically been good for its business.
Yet while the return of blue books may be a step in the right direction, they surely aren't a fix-all for the broad variety of ills caused by students' AI-use. Philip D. Bunn, an assistant professor at the Covenant College in Georgia, recently wrote on his blog that the traditional essay (which, until ChatGPT came along, was a great indicator of a student's intellectual capacity and was very difficult to fake unless you went to the trouble of hiring a ghostwriter) cannot be replaced by the in-class essay. Bunn writes that 'the process of writing a paper outside of class cannot simply be replicated in a blue book exam, and something serious is lost if we give up entirely on the traditional essay, whether those essays are more analytic, argumentative, or research-based.'
Indeed, if the return of pen and paper is a promising sign, America's educators aren't out of the woods yet—not even close. A recent survey found that 89% of college students had admitted to using ChatGPT to complete a homework assignment. AI-detection tools designed to spot cheating also routinely fail. Increasingly, America's youth seem to view their educations as a high-stakes video game to be algorithmically juked. In short, more drastic measures (like the formulation of new laws and regulations around AI use) may need to be taken if the onset of America's aggressive stupidification is to be halted.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNET
7 hours ago
- CNET
What Worries Americans About AI? Politics, Jobs and Friends
Americans have a lot of worries about artificial intelligence. Like job losses and energy use. Even more so: political chaos. All of that is a lot to blame on one new technology that was an afterthought to most people just a few years ago. Generative AI, in the few years since ChatGPT burst onto the scene, has become so ubiquitous in our lives that people have strong opinions about what it means and what it can do. A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Aug. 13-18 and released Tuesday dug into some of those specific concerns. It focused on the worries people had about the technology, and the general public has often had a negative perception. In this survey, 47% of respondents said they believe AI is bad for humanity, compared with 31% who disagreed with that statement. Compare those results with a Pew Research Center survey, released in April, that found 35% of the public believed AI would have a negative impact on the US, versus 17% who believed it would be positive. That sentiment flipped when Pew asked AI experts the same question. The experts were more optimistic: 56% said they expected a positive impact, and only 15% expected a negative one. Don't miss any of CNET's unbiased tech content and lab-based reviews. Add us as a preferred Google source on Chrome. The Reuters/Ipsos poll specifically highlights some of the immediate, tangible concerns many people have with the rapid expansion of generative AI technology, along with the less-specific fears about runaway robot intelligence. The numbers indicate more concern than comfort with those bigger-picture, long-term questions, like whether AI poses a risk to the future of humankind (58% agree, 20% disagree). But even larger portions of the American public are worried about more immediate issues. Foremost among those immediate issues is the potential that AI will disrupt political systems, with 77% of those polled saying they were concerned. AI tools, particularly image and video generators, have the potential to create distorting or manipulative content (known as deepfakes) that can mislead voters or undermine trust in political information, particularly on social media. Most Americans, at 71%, said they were concerned AI would cause too many people to lose jobs. The impact of AI on the workforce is expected to be significant, with some companies already talking about being "AI-first." AI developers and business leaders tout the technology's ability to make workers more efficient. But other polls have also shown how common fears of job loss are. The April Pew survey found 64% of Americans and 39% of AI experts thought there would be fewer jobs in the US in 20 years because of AI. Read more: AI Essentials: 29 Ways You Can Make Gen AI Work for You, According to Our Experts But the Reuters/Ipsos poll also noted two other worries that have become more mainstream: the effect of AI on personal relationships and energy consumption. Two-thirds of respondents in the poll said they were concerned about AI's use as a replacement for in-person relationships. Generative AI's human-like tone (which comes from the fact that it was trained on, and therefore replicates, stuff written by humans) has led many users to treat chatbots and characters as if they were, well, actual friends. This is widespread enough that OpenAI, when it rolled out the new GPT-5 model this month, had to bring back an older model that had a more conversational tone because users felt like they'd lost a friend. Even OpenAI CEO Sam Altman acknowledged that users treating AI as a kind of therapist or life coach made him "uneasy." The energy demands of AI are also significant and a concern for 61% of Americans surveyed. The demand comes from the massive amounts of computing power required to train and run large language models like OpenAI's ChatGPT and Google's Gemini. The data centers that house these computers are like giant AI factories, and they're taking up space, electricity and water in a growing number of places.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Was Melania's letter to Putin written by ChatGPT? We read closely for clues
In theory, it was perhaps a noble gesture: First Lady Melania Trump sending a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin pleading for the safety and welfare of the children. In practice, it was, well, a bit barmy. What children was she hoping to protect? Ukrainian children? Russian children? Both? Trump didn't say. 'Every child shares the same quiet dreams in their heart,' her letter began, 'whether born randomly into a nation's rustic countryside or a magnificent city-center.' From this opening, one thing was clear: Hillary Rodham Clinton's 'It Takes a Village' this was not. As a long-time writer, editor and writing professor at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, one of the first rules of craft I talk about with my beginning writing students is how the specific is better than the abstract. The reader can't visualize war-torn Kherson, for example, without some definitive, visceral details and description. A June 2024 report by Yousur Al-Hlou and Masha Froliak that appeared in the New York Times provides a good example: [T]he rumble of artillery fired by Russian troops advancing on Kherson City, the region's capital, was already reverberating through the hallways. The doctor and her fellow caregivers faced a wrenching dilemma: how to protect the dozens of vulnerable children. They were all infants and toddlers, and some had serious disabilities, such as cerebral palsy. Some had living parents who retained limited custody over them, while others had been removed from troubled homes or abandoned. 'Who else would have stayed behind to look after them?' Dr. Lukina said about her decision to remain with the children. 'Imagine if we all turned our backs and left?' Note the unambiguous details: The advancing Russian army, 'the rumble of artillery,' Ukrainian children and a doctor determined to protect them. Al-Hlou and Froliak have conjured an immersive, evocative experience on the page that is rooted both in reality and emotion. This is the kind of writing that can move hearts. The specific becomes universal, extending an invitation to the reader to stand in the shoes of the doctor and other Ukrainians. Of course, it's probably unfair to expect someone who is not a writer by profession to conjure prose like this on the page. But Trump's letter reads as if someone did not make much of an effort. That's why some have begun to speculate that the first lady's letter might have been written not by a White House staffer or intern, but by a generative AI program like ChatGPT. With stock phrases such as 'the next generation's hope' and 'a dignity-filled world for all,' and references to standing 'against the forces that can potentially claim their future,' Trump's letter reads as clinical and aloof, absent of any true emotion — a performance, phoned-in rather than heartfelt. So I decided to run an experiment. I asked ChatGPT to write a letter from Melania Trump to Vladimir Putin about protecting children. My request was politely refused. When I tried again with a more general request — 'Write a letter about protecting children' — my efforts were rewarded. Children, it said, 'are the foundation of our future.' Their 'potential' should be nurtured and their 'innocence' defended. They should be 'free to dream, grow, and thrive.' As bromidic as the AI letter was, it was better written and more cohesive than Trump's. But then again, it lacked this iconic line: 'Mr. Putin, you can singlehandedly restore their melodic laughter.' The first lady's references to music and laughter might seem to invite comparisons to Whitney Houston's 1985 hit 'The Greatest Love of All,' which declared, 'Let the children's laughter remind us of how we used to be.' But Linda Creed's lyrics are, at least when interpreted by The Voice, nothing if not sincere and genuine. (And, as a Whitney stan, I don't want to sully her reputation — she really did engage in charitable work for children — with such a comparison.) So: if Melania Trump's letter were a song, it would be PowerSource's 'Dear Mr. Jesus,' the — thankfully — forgotten treacly appeal to 'Please don't let them hurt your children' that inexplicably crossed over from the Contemporary Christian charts to become a Billboard Hot 100 hit in December 1987. Sung by a six-year-old girl and designed to tug at the heartstrings, the song about child abuse implored, 'we need love and shelter from the storm' and left listeners with an overwrought question: 'Won't you keep us safe and warm?' Instead, it caused a lot of listeners, not to mention music critics, to roll their eyes. The thing is, there's an alternate universe in which Trump's letter to Putin could have made a powerfully effective diplomatic statement. After all, she was born Melanija Knavs behind the Iron Curtain in what was then the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. While her family was comparatively well-off — her father became a car salesman for a state-owned company — and Yugoslavs, under the rule of the maverick communist president Marshal Josip Broz Tito, enjoyed what was thought by many to be a more 'human' socialism, with more freedom in business and travel than citizens of other communist countries, Trump doubtless saw the negative effects of an authoritarian government and a mismanaged economy. By the 1980s, when she was entering adolescence, Yugoslavia descended into an economic crisis. With the country's foreign debt exceeding $20 billion, living standards fell by over 40%. Inflation reached 2000%. Historians say the deprivation contributed to the growing ethnic tensions of the polyglot state, which led to the Bosnian War in the 1990s. But Trump has never been concerned with exerting soft power along the lines of previous first ladies like Michelle Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Laura Bush, Nancy Reagan or even Jacqueline Kennedy, who is purported to be a model for Trump. (As for the Kennedy comparison, an 'old friend' from Slovenia told GQ in 2016: ''People say she's smart, she's well-educated like Jackie Kennedy, but…' The friend pauses to find the right words. 'She's smart for the things she's interested in, like jewelry. She's not stupid, she's not a bimbo, but she's not especially clever.'') The first lady also has a checkered history when it comes to her prose. At the 2016 Republican National Convention, Trump stumbled into a plagiarism row when she gave a speech with sections that appeared to be taken directly from First Lady Michelle Obama's address to the Democratic National Convention eight years earlier. (In 'Melania,' her memoir that was published last year, Trump blamed the situation on campaign staff members.) The text and graphics for her 'Be Best' booklet, released in 2018 as part of her campaign to prevent childhood bullying, were strikingly similar to a pamphlet published by the Obama administration. The banality of her letter to Putin was itself a choice — and was completely on brand, for Melania Trump has always been just as opaque as her prose suggests. She herself could have been created by a MAGA version of ChatGPT: The trad wife from the 1950s and before, who is seen and not heard, who takes her political cues from her husband and whose philanthropic concerns are confined to, as she once memorably said, 'many, many charities…Many different charities involving children' — there's that amorphous term again — 'involving many different diseases.' Writing a sincere letter, in which Trump was specific rather than general, would have meant calling on Putin to stop his relentless, unprovoked and indiscriminate bombing of Ukraine. It would have noted that at least 716 children have been killed in Ukrainian territory since Russia's war of aggression started in Feb. 2022, and over 2,000 have been injured. It would have mentioned the estimated 737,000 children who have been displaced within Ukraine, and the more than 1.7 million who are refugees, according to a report issued by the United Nations Human Rights Office. It would have called out the Russian president for the Ukrainian children — more than 20,000 — who have been abducted by Russia, some of whom have been forced into reeducation camps or paramilitary groups in an effort to turn them into Russian soldiers to fight against their own country. Such a letter would have also necessitated a policy break with her husband, who, after a brief period in which he mildly criticized his friend 'Vladimir,' seems to have fallen back under the Russian president's spell in the wake of their Alaska summit. Being specific on the page requires research, a fidelity to facts and a willingness to be bold — in this case, in the name of Ukraine's children. Empathy, understanding and change are the potential rewards. While it's not realistic to assume that such a letter from Melania Trump would have moved and provoked an about-face from Putin, it would have at least served as a moral clarion call for the rest of the world — and burnished the first lady's slender White House legacy in the process. The post Was Melania's letter to Putin written by ChatGPT? We read closely for clues appeared first on Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Fifth Circuit halts West Texas A&M drag show ban as free speech lawsuit continues
A federal appeals court Monday blocked West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler from enforcing a campus drag show ban, ruling that the performances are likely protected under the First Amendment. The 2-1 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a lower court's decision upholding Wendler's 2023 cancellation of a drag show, which he argued was demeaning to women and compared to blackface. The decision means Spectrum WT, the student group that brought the lawsuit, can produce drag shows on campus while its lawsuit continues in a lower court. Judge Leslie H. Southwick, who wrote for the majority, said the context of the students' event made its message of supporting the queer community clear. 'The viewers of the drag show would have been ticketed audience members attending a performance sponsored by LGBT+ student organizations and designed to raise funds for LGBT+ suicide-prevention charity, ' wrote Southwick, who was appointed by George W. Bush. 'Against this backdrop, the message sent by parading on a theater stage in attire of the opposite sex would have been unmistakable.' [How plans for a West Texas drag show turned into a war over the First Amendment] The court concluded that Legacy Hall, where the drag show was scheduled to take place, was a designated public forum open to a variety of groups, including churches and political candidates. That meant banning drag shows targeted the content of the event, something the Constitution allows only in the rarest cases. Finally, the court found that students faced ongoing irreparable harm to their speech rights, noting Wendler had canceled another drag show planned for 2024 and declared that no drag shows would ever be allowed on campus. That conclusion gave the judges another reason to block the ban for now, since courts only grant such relief when plaintiffs have a strong case and risk being harmed without it. In March 2023, Wendler canceled Spectrum WT's drag show intended to raise money for the Trevor Project, a nonprofit that works to reduce suicides in the LGBTQ+ community. He explained in a letter to the campus community that he thought drag shows — where participants often use exaggerated clothing and makeup to explore, celebrate or parody gender roles — were misogynistic. 'As a university president, I would not support 'blackface' performances on our campus, even if told the performance is a form of free speech or intended as humor. It is wrong. I do not support any show, performance or artistic expression which denigrates – in this case, women – for any reason,' he wrote. In September 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a President Donald Trump appointee and former attorney for a conservative legal group that opposed LGBTQ rights, sided with Wendler. The case arose as Texas lawmakers were also targeting drag more broadly. The same year, they passed a law restricting some drag performances in public spaces, but a federal judge later struck it down as unconstitutional under the First Amendment. West Texas A&M isn't the only campus to ban drag shows. This year, the Texas A&M System adopted a systemwide prohibition, and the University of Texas and University of North Texas systems enacted similar restrictions following pressure from conservative officials, including Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare. In March, however, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Texas A&M System's ban, allowing the 'Draggieland' event at the flagship campus to proceed, also finding that students were likely to succeed on their First Amendment claims. That lawsuit is also still working its way through the courts. Judge James C. Ho dissented in the West Texas A&M case. Ho, who was appointed to the 5th Circuit by Trump and is the former Solicitor General of Texas, wrote that Spectrum WT had not shown it was entitled to such an 'extraordinary remedy' as a court order blocking the drag show ban. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which represents Spectrum WT in the West Texas A&M case and the Queer Empowerment Council in the Texas A&M System lawsuit, hailed the ruling as a major victory for student speech. 'We're overjoyed that our clients will now be able to express themselves freely, and we'll be watching to make sure that President Wendler obeys the laws of the land while the case proceeds,' FIRE Attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in a statement. A spokesperson for West Texas A&M could not immediately be reached for comment, so it's unclear how the university will respond to the ruling. The case now returns to district court in Amarillo, where the fight over whether West Texas A&M's drag ban is constitutional will continue. The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage. Disclosure: West Texas A&M University has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. More all-star speakers confirmed for The Texas Tribune Festival, Nov. 13–15! This year's lineup just got even more exciting with the addition of State Rep. Caroline Fairly, R-Amarillo; former United States Attorney General Eric Holder; Abby Phillip, anchor of 'CNN NewsNight'; Aaron Reitz, 2026 Republican candidate for Texas Attorney General; and State Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin. Get your tickets today! TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase. Solve the daily Crossword