Latest news with #NanyangTechnologicalUniversity
The Star
10 hours ago
- The Star
Opinion: We're losing the plot on AI in universities
An artificial intelligence furor that's consuming Singapore's academic community reveals how we've lost the plot over the role the hyped-up technology should play in higher education. A student at Nanyang Technological University said in a Reddit post that she used a digital tool to alphabetise her citations for a term paper. When it was flagged for typos, she was then accused of breaking the rules over the use of generative AI for the assignment. It snowballed when two more students came forward with similar complaints, one alleging that she was penalised for using ChatGPT to help with initial research, even though she says she did not use the bot to draft the essay. The school, which publicly states it embraces AI for learning, initially defended its zero-tolerance stance in this case in statements to local media. But Internet users rallied around the original Reddit poster, and rejoiced at an update that she won an appeal to rid her transcript of the academic fraud label. It may sound like a run-of-the-mill university dispute. But there's a reason the saga went so viral, garnering thousands of upvotes and heated opinions from online commentators. It laid bare the strange new world we've found ourselves in, as students and faculty are rushing to keep pace with how AI should or shouldn't be used in universities. It's a global conundrum, but the debate has especially roiled Asia . Stereotypes of math nerds and tiger moms aside, a rigorous focus on tertiary studies is often credited for the region's economic rise. The importance of education – and long hours of studying – is instilled from the earliest age. So how does this change in the AI era? The reality is that nobody has the answer yet. Despite the promises from edtech leaders that we're on the cusp of 'the biggest positive transformation that education has ever seen,' the data on academic outcomes hasn't kept pace with the technology's adoption. There are no long-term studies on how AI tools impact learning and cognitive functions – and viral headlines that it could make us lazy and dumb only add to the anxiety. Meanwhile, the race to not be left behind in implementing the technology risks turning an entire generation of developing minds into guinea pigs. For educators navigating this moment, the answer is not to turn a blind eye. Even if some teachers discourage the use of AI, it has become almost unavoidable for scholars doing research in the internet age. Most Google searches now lead with automated summaries. Scrolling through these should not count as academic dishonesty. An informal survey of 500 Singaporean students from secondary school through university conducted by a local news outlet this year found that 84% were using products like ChatGPT for homework on a weekly basis. In China , many universities are turning to AI cheating detectors, even though the technology is imperfect. Some students are reporting on social media that they have to dumb down their writing to pass these tests or shell out cash for such detection tools themselves to ensure they beat them before submitting their papers. It doesn't have to be this way. The chaotic moment of transition has put new onus on educators to adapt, and shift the focus on the learning process as much as the final results, Yeow Meng Chee , the provost and chief academic and innovation officer at the Singapore University of Technology and Design, tells me. This doesn't mean villainizing AI, but treating it as a tool, and ensuring a student understands how they arrived at their final conclusion even if they used technology. This process also helps ensure the AI outputs, which remain imperfect and prone to hallucinations (or typos), are checked and understood. Ultimately, professors who make the biggest difference aren't those who improve exam scores but who build trust, teach empathy and instill confidence in students to solve complex problems. The most important parts of learning still can't be optimised by a machine. The Singapore saga shows how everyone is on edge, and whether a reference-sorting website even counts as a generative AI tool isn't clear. It also exposed another irony: Saving time on a tedious task would likely be welcomed when the student enters the workforce – if the technology hasn't already taken her entry-level job. Demand for AI literacy in the labor market is becoming a must-have, and universities ignoring it does a disservice to cohorts entering the real world. We're still a few years away from understanding the full impact of AI on teaching and how it can best be used in higher education. But let's not miss the forest for the trees as we figure it out. – Bloomberg (Catherine Thorbecke is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Asia tech. Previously she was a tech reporter at CNN and ABC News .)
The Star
3 days ago
- General
- The Star
Satay, roti canai and kuey teow
DIFFERENCES between races, cultures and religions have not stopped South-East Asians from building close-knit communities in their respective countries. While countries like Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam are more homogenous compared to Malaysia and Singapore, social cohesion in the region remains high – averaging 72.4%, according to the South-East Asian Social Cohesion Radar 2025. The study, initiated in 2022 by the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies at Nanyang Technological University, measures social ties across ethnic, religious and linguistic lines. 'There is a broad acceptance for cultural differences. Overall, more than seven in 10 are confident that people from diverse communities will help each other regardless of their identity,' says the school's Senior Fellow and Social Cohesion Research Programme head Dr Leong Chan-Hoon. And when we zoom in on Malaysia, the numbers appear to be heading in the right direction. Malaysia's overall social cohesion score rose from 68% in 2022 to 75% in 2025. The latest breakdown shows 80% in social relations (ties across ethnicity, religion and language), 70% in connectedness (ties between communities, institutions and government), and 75% in civic-mindedness or people's willingness to work together for the common good. According to the report, Malaysians 'feel strongly connected with their national and cultural identities, and are confident of other ethnic and religious groups.' 'Unity in diversity' Malaysia's national identity often revolves around the idea of 'unity in diversity'. So how do Malaysians mentally process pluralism – especially across generations, where values and cultural scripts may differ? Taylor's University Mental Health and Well-being Impact Lab director Professor Dr Rozainee Khairudin says national identity is shaped by this very diversity. 'Due to the country's multicultural landscape, most Malaysians are exposed from a young age to various ethnic groups, languages, traditions and religious practices,' she says. 'This exposure enables them to form mental representations such as schemas (basic knowledge structures) and cultural scripts (internalised rules for social interaction) that incorporate diversity.' She explains that a Malaysian child growing up in a multicultural school, for instance, may develop a schema that sees ethnic difference as normal and expected. 'Over time, these mental structures become automatic – helping individuals navigate diverse environments with more tolerance and less cognitive effort. 'This is pluralism in action – not just accepting difference, but engaging with it fluidly.' CLICK TO ENLARGE Social acceptance Universiti Sains Malaysia sociologist Dr Zaireeni Azmi says she was pleasantly surprised by Malaysia's 78.4% score under the acceptance in diversity indicator – a component of the social relations domain. 'It's one of the most influential dimensions of social cohesion,' she says. 'To be honest, I do worry when I see racial slurs like 'Type M' or 'Type C' still popping up on social media. 'But clearly, there's more good than bad among the people. I'd call Malaysia a success story in terms of a multiracial society – from the roti canai and nasi lemak we eat, to the 'lah' we use in daily conversation.' Zaireeni also highlights 'mamak-isation' as a symbolic expression of unity – where people of all races sit together at mamak restaurants to eat, chat and watch football. 'You rarely see that in Malay or Chinese restaurants. But at the mamak, Malays, Chinese and Indians hang out together. That reflects our society. It shows a sense of belonging and unity in diversity. 'The report also shows that we're proud of our national identity. That's good news.' Still, she cautions, unity in diversity is not without its cracks. 'There are issues around representation. We've had riots in the past. It's not perfect, but we are living together peacefully.' The report also underscores the role of national policy in shaping unity. For instance, following the May 13, 1969 riots, the government introduced the 'Rukun Negara'– a set of National Principles to promote unity: Belief in God; Loyalty to King and Country; Supremacy of the Constitution; Rule of Law; Courtesy and Morality. 'These principles are integrated into our education system and continue to influence national unity policies. 'The government also promotes the concept of Bangsa Malaysia – an inclusive national identity for all. Bahasa Melayu, as the national language, helps facilitate interaction between ethnic groups.' Zaireeni agrees and points to a recent example. 'When the Visit Malaysia Year montage didn't include any mosques, it wasn't just the Malays who questioned it – other races too felt it didn't represent Malaysia's vibrant cultural identity.' Growing commonality Malaysia also scores highly in the domain that measures focus on the common good –especially in civic participation (80%) and respect for social rules (81%), though solidarity and helpfulness lags slightly behind at 66%. When asked whether religion and culture can be forces for unity or division, Zaireeni says it depends on how people approach their differences. 'When we talk about religion or linguistic identities, we should celebrate them together. Look at how we observe all major religious festivals – Hari Raya, Chinese New Year, Deepavali and Christmas, among others. 'That shared heritage is our strength. We must always work for a common good.' But she warns that unity can unravel if differences are politicised. 'When people push a 'them vs us' narrative, it strains relationships. I don't know why some keep doing that.' The media, she adds, also plays a vital role in shaping public perception. 'Some media houses sensationalise differences for attention. That's harmful. Instead, let's highlight the positive – stories about people helping one another, about collaboration. 'We already have enough politicians doing the opposite.' Young and old The survey also notes that age, ethnicity and religion influence perceptions of social cohesion – especially in Malaysia. Younger people tend to view society more positively than older generations. Among 1,003 respondents, youths rated Perception of Fairness at a mean of 3.81, compared to 3.64 for adults and 3.25 for seniors. Similarly, in Identification, youth scored 4.14, adults 4.02, and seniors 3.82. Rozainee says these generational gaps can shape how pluralism is understood. 'Older generations may hold onto more rigid cultural scripts formed by past sociopolitical experiences, while younger Malaysians – especially those influenced by global media and inclusive education – develop more flexible, integrative ways of thinking about identity and diversity. 'These differing cognitive frameworks can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or value clashes between generations.'
CNA
6 days ago
- CNA
Commentary: Lecturers need to give students clearer instructions about AI use
SINGAPORE: Imagine you are a lecturer grading students' essays about their research methods for the term project. You notice that three students mentioned using artificial intelligence in different ways. Jane used an AI tool to help format citations in APA style. Don discussed topic ideas with ChatGPT to help narrow down his research focus. Beatrice ran her draft through an AI writing assistant to catch grammatical errors before final submission. You realise that you did not explicitly address AI use in your course syllabus, and your university's policy broadly states that students must not use such tools without permission from the instructor. The three students made good-faith attempts at disclosure, but you are uncertain whether their uses violate the spirit of academic integrity. How do you proceed? This is a hypothetical scenario, but it is happening across universities. Students routinely use programmes like Grammarly without considering them AI, while lecturers may permit some tools such as citation assistance. The recent incident at Nanyang Technological University illustrates how students and lecturers can have different interpretations of what's acceptable. FAIR AND UNFAIR AI USE In recent years, artificial intelligence has advanced more rapidly than policies can keep up with, resulting in a grey area between AI use and abuse. Most universities have broad definitions on the acceptable use of AI. The University of Pennsylvania gives a simple analogy: 'In the absence of other guidance, treat the use of AI as you would treat assistance from another person. For example, this means if it is unacceptable to have another person substantially complete a task like writing an essay, it is also unacceptable to have AI to complete the task. ' Generally, the use of AI for brainstorming, drafting and idea generation is permitted, and where permitted, the explicit declaration or acknowledgement of the use of AI in assignments is also required. Unfair AI use then entails passing off AI-generated work as one's own without proper attribution, or employing it when it was explicitly prohibited to gain an unfair advantage. TASK-SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR AI Given the wide scope of universities' academic policies, it is up to lecturers to give instructions regarding AI use, specific to each assignment. For essays and written tasks, instructors should ensure students understand the distinction between research and writing assistance. Students should be required to disclose AI usage and show documentation to verify authentic thinking. Problem sets and technical work such as coding require a different approach. Instructors must distinguish between when AI assistance is educational and when it becomes academic dependency. In mathematics courses, for instance, AI might be permitted for checking calculations but prohibited for generating solution methods. Students can also be told to show all work steps manually and to be prepared to explain their solution process to the class. For creative and analytical assessments, instructors can tell students that AI may be used for initial inspiration and research, but that all content must be produced by students. Students in fine arts, for instance, may be allowed to utilise AI for brainstorming sessions, but must develop original pieces. Meanwhile, business students may utilise market analysis tools powered by AI, but must produce unique strategy recommendations. Lecturers can also require students to document any AI-generated ideas that influenced their work. These guidelines seek to develop each student's capability not only in critical thinking but also develop capabilities in the area of human-AI collaboration. PREVENTION OVER PUNISHMENT However, even with clear AI guidelines, there will be students tempted to use tools and software to circumvent the rules. For example, students may use 'humanising' software to disguise an AI-generated assignment to bypass detection software. Students may also use AI tools in oral exams, as current technologies allow for such apps to reside on mobile phones and communicate wirelessly to the students via discreet earpieces. Rather than play detective, institutions should focus on prevention through clear communication. This means writing unambiguous AI policies with concrete examples. Other prevention strategies include AI literacy training for faculty and students, redesigning assessments that are more focused on processes rather than answers, and verifying students' understanding through conversational assessments and in-class discussions. Universities can also consider "AI-transparent" approaches where students document their use of AI tools throughout the assignment, similar to how they cite traditional sources. This creates accountability on the students' part while avoiding the adversarial effects of detection-based enforcement. Clear AI guidelines protect the value of university degrees and prepare students for an AI-driven future. They help students develop ethical instinct, emotional intelligence and creative thinking – human skills that AI cannot replace. University graduates will likely work alongside AI tools and apps throughout their careers. The problem for universities is not about addressing the over-reliance on AI or banning it outright, but teaching students how to collaborate with AI responsibly. With clear and transparent guidelines, universities can uphold educational integrity while preparing students for an AI-enhanced world.
Yahoo
13-07-2025
- Science
- Yahoo
Cyborg Beetles Could Be Unlikely Heroes in Future Disaster Rescues
Disaster victims trapped beneath the rubble of a collapsed building or mine may one day be rescued by a tiny and unlikely savior: a beetle with a backpack. Researchers have made major strides in cyborg technology, creating a breed of cyborg beetles that can climb walls, obstacles, and sloped surfaces while being remotely guided by a video game controller. Called "ZoBorgs," the cyborg beetles are a collaborative effort between The University of Queensland and the University of New South Wales, both in Australia, and Singapore's Nanyang Technological University. To imbue their darkling beetles (Zophobas morio) with remote control, the researchers equipped them with a microchip backpack that sends electrical signals to the beetles' antennae or forewings (elytra), prompting them to move in different directions. Related: Darkling beetles are also known as 'superworms' for the worm-like form of their larvae. These creatures may help the world in multiple ways. Culinarily, they're a rich source of fatty acids and protein, commonly consumed in countries like Mexico and Thailand. The larvae also love dining on one of the world's most prevalent plastics, polystyrene, which is used to make common conveniences like packing materials and disposable cutlery. This is not good for the beetles, but copying how they digest the substance could help us tackle the plastic waste problem. At up to 32 millimeters (1.26 inches) in body length and about 8 millimeters (0.3 inches) in height, darkling beetles are small and nimble, possessing natural gifts that allow them to maneuver where robots cannot: within the tight confines of dense, jumbled rubble. Featured in Advanced Science, the new study harnesses the beetles' natural gifts and "adds programmable controls that allow for precise directional guidance, without affecting the lifespan of the beetle," says engineer Thang Vo-Doan of the School of Mechanical and Mining Engineering at The University of Queensland. These programmable controls are transmitted via a beetle-backpack with electrodes that act like electrical reins. Stimulating the antennae causes the beetle to turn, decelerate, or walk backwards. Stimulating both elytra causes acceleration or forward walking, while stimulating a single elytron causes sideways movement. As a result, the ZoBorgs can cross obstacles equal to their body height with a success rate of 92 percent. They can also move from horizontal to vertical surfaces with a 71.2 percent success rate – a rate unmatched by previous cyborg insects or robots. Lachlan Fitzgerald, an engineer at The University of Queensland, explains that while "robots at this scale have made strides in locomotion, the transition from horizontal surfaces to walls remains a formidable challenge for them." But not so for the ZoBorgs. Plus, using beetles means that researchers do not have to design actuators, sensors, or control systems – the beetles are already naturally equipped by many millions of years of evolutionary adaptations. These climbing adaptations include flexible, adhesive footpads, gripping claws, and rigid but agile body structures. In combination with their antennae, insects use sensors in their legs and mechanoreceptors in their exoskeletons to sense physical stimuli, such as surface textures and vibrations. Future advances may focus on improving the beetles' climbing ability and autonomy by incorporating an inertial measurement unit (IMU) that provides real-time, non-visual data like acceleration and other forces. The addition of a compact, lightweight visual camera can further boost control mechanisms, and will be necessary for identifying trapped individuals in search and rescue situations. Finally, cyborg advances described here could inspire innovations in robotics, such as the incorporation of beetle-like feelers to improve robots' navigational abilities. Notably, scientists maintained ethical practices to ensure the beetles' well-being. Compared to other animals used in research, the beetles lived in relatively ritzy conditions, sleeping on wheat-bran bedding and eating fresh apple slices. Following the experiments, they received care for the remainder of their three-month lifespans. This study demonstrates that cyborg science is making essential strides. It may not yet be the robotic organs promised by science fiction, but a cyborg beetle may be just as likely to save lives. This research is published in Advanced Science. Quantum Breakthrough Could Make Your Devices 1,000 Times Faster New Viral Indie Rock Sensation Reveals They're 100% AI ChatGPT: 5 Surprising Truths About How AI Chatbots Actually Work
AsiaOne
10-07-2025
- Business
- AsiaOne
Chinese man with PhD from NTU, Masters from Oxford turns delivery rider after 10 failed interviews, Singapore News
A Chinese national who holds a PhD from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and a Master's degree from Oxford turned to food delivery after being rejected from 10 job interviews. Ding Yuanzhao has been deemed "the food delivery worker with the highest education level" due to his academic qualifications. He garnered attention in June for posting a video encouraging students who had completed China's national university entrance exam, which takes place annually in early June with results released at the end of the month. "If you haven't achieved good results, don't be pessimistic or discouraged. If you've done well, keep in mind that most people's work doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things," Ding said. The 39-year-old from Fujian province said in a WeChat post in April last year that he used to work on postdoctoral research at the National University of Singapore (NUS), where his contract ended in March last year. He added that despite sending out numerous resumes and attending over 10 interviews, he was unable to secure a suitable job. As a result, Ding began working as a food delivery rider in Singapore, earning about $700 a week by working around 10 hours each day. He has worked for both Grab and Foodpanda, according to his social media posts. "It is a stable job. I can support my family with this income. If you work hard, you can earn a decent living. It's not a bad job," he wrote. Ding, who is an avid running enthusiast, added that an advantage of delivering food is getting a workout in at the same time. Addressing those who asked why he did not become a private tutor like many of his highly-educated peers, Ding said that he is "too shy to seek customers" on his own. According to a WeChat post made in 2023, Ding is a Singapore Permanent Resident. He attended Tsinghua and Peking Universities in China before furthering his studies abroad. Multiple media reported that Ding moved back to China and is currently a delivery rider in Beijing for leading shopping platform Meituan. But when contacted by AsiaOne, Ding said that he has not been to Beijing in 10 years. He did not disclose where he is now based. [[nid:719746]]
