> But that’s my question. If the AI generated the exact same words a human touch person would have is disclosing the author necessary?
Honestly, the disclosure probably had nothing to do with the message itself. I'm sure it was all about institutional beliefs and policies regarding plagiarism. If some student took credit for an unattributed ChatGPT essay, they'd probably be pitilessly be given a zero at best.
However, including the disclaimer totally undermined the message (which was a pro-forma thing no one would probably have cared about otherwise). The message said "we care," but the disclaimer said "but not that much," and that would understandably offend people if noticed.
But it isn’t about the plagiarism. It’s confirmation that the institution only cares about empty platitudes while not really doing anything else to help their students. And if they’re not helpful, why does their job exist?
Empty platitudes are all they have to offer. What are they supposed to do? Lie and say it'll never happen again? Lie and say they have the power to prevent it? Or to effect meaningful change? Tell the truth that the students in fact are at risk and there's nothing anyone at the university can actually do to prevent it?
The futility of the whole situation has resulted in a culture of ceremony around the devastation as a way to cope. Now that people have violated the coping ceremony, we're mad at them. But why? Because we are powerful enough to at least scold them in an attempt to preserve the coping ceremony. But they're not the ones shooting people. They're not the ones directing policy that causes mass shootings.
Instead, we need to direct all that anger to changing the situation such that they never are put in a position of writing letters about shotting victims. Instead of smugly stating they are worthless people because their jobs can be replaced by a chatbot, we should question why it is the case that someone's job is to write condolence letters after shootings. Why aren't we mad that's an acceptable job function in the US? The solution students are looking for is not more empathy toward shooting victims, it's fewer shooting victims in the first place!
> But it isn’t about the plagiarism. It’s confirmation that the institution only cares about empty platitudes while not really doing anything else to help their students. And if they’re not helpful, why does their job exist?
You're kind of missing the point:
1. Institutional practices/beliefs about plagiarism will influence its behavior in other areas.
2. "Empty platitudes," are often necessary, as a social lubricant. People aren't robots. Sometimes you can't do anything, but also you can't say nothing.
3. I very much doubt the university administration only exists to send out these messages, so you can't reasonably question if their job should exist based on this narrow episode.
Honestly, the disclosure probably had nothing to do with the message itself. I'm sure it was all about institutional beliefs and policies regarding plagiarism. If some student took credit for an unattributed ChatGPT essay, they'd probably be pitilessly be given a zero at best.
However, including the disclaimer totally undermined the message (which was a pro-forma thing no one would probably have cared about otherwise). The message said "we care," but the disclaimer said "but not that much," and that would understandably offend people if noticed.