From a quick scan of some of the documents it looks like the meat of the claim here is that he didn’t use AI to do the exam for him, and the normal (terrible) AI detector didn’t flag it, but one of the reviewers was able to fine tune their prompt until it spat out something sufficiently similar to the suspect submission.
I don’t have enough data or expertise to weigh in on whether this claim is plausible or accurate, but in either case AI looks bad. Either it allowed Mr Yang to cheat on his PhD or else it allowed an overzealous bureaucrat to invent the evidence needed to make it look like he had cheated. It doesn’t take a lawyer to see how that possibility could be abused by bad-faith actors in any number of arenas.
i don’t think it helps his case that he’s using chatgpt as a lawyer
dunno, I think it’s a great contribution. not to his case, mind you, but to the collective human experience. as a warning to others, and entertainment.
At least he lives by what he believes in for real. I kind of respect him for that.
Live by the AI, die by the AI
Ten bucks says he won’t learn from this loss.
Brightest economics phd
Dumb.
