The everyday blog of Richard Bartle.
RSS feeds: v0.91; v1.0 (RDF); v2.0; Atom.
Previous entry.
9:24am on Thursday, 27th March, 2025:
Anecdote
I told my CE217 students that I didn't mind them using ChatGPT or similar to help them with their assignment, but warned them to check what was handed in. Most students did it without ChatGPT as it's more fun that way, but maybe a sixth of them (typically direct second-year entrants) did. This meant that I got several projects that used American English spelling conventions, were set in a futuristic dystopia and had no idea what I meant by a "pay-off grid" (which was a trap; if I'd called it a "pay-off matrix" in the specification then it would have done, but I didn't, so it went with the wrong type). I told the students who submitted these that if they didn't understand something then they should ask the lecturer, not do whatever they did instead.
Even so, I was surprised to find words like this included in what was handed-in (I've redacted the game name):
Here's a concise pitch for [redacted], keeping in mind your teacher's requirements
and
This treatment provides a clear overview of the game's concept, what players do, and the main gameplay mechanics, all while keeping the tone enthusiastic and focused. It covers the essential details while outlining what makes the game unique and exciting! How do you think this works for your project?
I wasn't expecting to see a conversation between the student and ChatGPT.
This didn't cost the student any marks, but it does suggest to me that we should give our intake some instruction on wrangling large language models properly.
Latest entries.
Archived entries.
About this blog.
Copyright © 2025 Richard Bartle (richard@mud.co.uk).