My Analysis of Human vs. AI Feedback:
Task 1:
For some reason, AI was a much harsher grader than my TA professor was. It tore apart my entire post, saying I “lacked nuance,” with certain expressions, as well as said I had a “superficial exploration of disadvantages” when I said “many people were affected by the event [by the meme I was posting about]”. I can see why it may be a harsh grader, but I feel like the rubric was very clear about what to grade positively and what to grade negatively and I don’t think those minor slip-ups were worth a deduction from my grade. Ultimately, I think my TA saw through those slip-ups and gave me the grade I deserved (100). The AI gave me a 73, a 75, and a 76 (not in that order), which I think is a dramatic exaggeration; I put a lot of effort into my post.
The feedback to some degree was encouraging, but I think that’s because in the prompt I told it to be. In other words, it was prompted to give 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses. With that being said, some of the weaknesses felt so mean and degrading that the strengths seemed ingenuine to some degree. Also, the paragraph below that said what should be fixed was definitely robotic and void of emotion, which took away from the experience. With that being said, the AI gave me more feedback than I got originally, which I guess deserves some credit.
In terms of fitting the level of the course, I guess I can say it does. I have no reason to say it doesn’t, it’s hard like college is grade wise, so the two experiences are comparable without a doubt. It also fits the rubric perfectly, almost too perfectly. It references “Citations” and “sources” several times in both evaluations, probably because all my sources are links that it doesn’t have, so it thinks my sources aren’t sources at all. Either way, it is too strict in my opinion.
Curiosity Assignment:
This was an assignment that I had completely forgotten about until I did some digging for this assignment. I thought it was fitting, given its topic; AI. Oddly, AI gave me a similar grade range for that assignment too, giving me a 76, a 78, and a 75. Even more strangely, the AI gave me similar reasons for the grading, citing “sentence structure” in both evaluations, as well as “surface level analysis”. It makes me want to do more digging because it cannot be a coincidence that with two separate prompts, the AI gave me very similar things to fix.
On top of that, it was equally cold and disheartening with its weak remarks as it was in the first evaluation. It cited things like missed opportunities for depth, lack of structure, and repetitive words/sentences as the reasons my essay wasn’t good. This surprised me given I got above a 90 on it in reality. Clearly, someone thought it had some structure and substance.
Other than that, given that I did not have much of a rubric ( just some guidelines I had from the comments, and the grade itself), I would say the AI adhered to the rubric as well as it could have. With that being said, I think it was a bit rudimentary. In other words, I don’t think it was at a college level, but that’s alright, it had less info to go off of then the first evaluation did.
What I Gave ChatGPT as Background:
(Task 1) Assignment Details:
Acting as a New Media professor, please critique a paper entitled “The Changes That Came As A Result of the iPhone” that I have written for the college-level course New Media 100. Following this initial prompt I will paste in these texts in order:
* Assignment description
* Grading rubric
* Text of paper
You will then write an evaluation of my paper following this format:
* 5 strengths of the paper
* 5 weaknesses of the paper
* 1 paragraph on ways to improve the paper
* Grade out of 100
Please be constructive, specific, and encouraging.
Understand?
(Task 1) Grading Rubric:
You explained how a technology could disrupt an industry, without AI: from 0 to +2 points
You explained who would benefit and who would suffer: from 0 to +2 points
You cited 3 non-Wikipedia sources: from 0 to +2 points
You wrote articulate, polished prose: from 0 to +2 points
You were thoughtful or imaginative: from 0 to +2 points
(Task 1) Text of Paper:
If you look back on the state of the world before the iPhone’s release, things looked very different; it has only been roughly 17 years since its release, and it has changed countless industries, some for the better, but also some for the worse. One industry that has been disrupted by mobile devices is the filmmaking industry. Prior to mobile devices like the iPhone, people had to physically attend a movie theatre if they had any hopes of watching a new movie. While that is still sometimes the case, almost every big filmmaking studio has had to alter its distribution methods to include streaming and downloading services as well.
On top of that, we have seen disruption in the form of digital streaming services such as Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Disney+, and YouTube; each with roughly at least 50% of their content being streamed on mobile devices like the iPhone (Forbes Article). In my mind, this is more a positive thing for filmmaking companies than a negative one. After all, mobile devices are really just another medium for them to promote their products, and when it comes down to it, mobile devices are so engrained into our society that pretty much everyone has one, and anyone with access to the Internet or cellular data can access their content anytime, anywhere. We can see the same trend in the music industry, where apps like Spotify, Apple Music, and SoundCloud reign supreme. (Second Article)
However, with that being said, the people who don’t have access to the luxuries the Internet provides us all with will not benefit from this transition at all. Although the spread of information is so fast with the Internet that these kinds of products could in theory spread across the world in mere seconds, not everyone in the world has access to mobile devices, let alone the Internet. In regards to the possibility of the “old ways” disappearing, I believe the future of the filmmaking industry in particular would look like an expanded version of what this article is referencing in our current time (Third Article). With the use of mobile devices, creativity is literally in the palms of our hands; filmmaking is no longer reserved for big filmmaking companies, and anyone can really make and subsequently view films from their smartphones or tablets. This democratization of filmmaking, as it is called, is something that I predict will only expand in the future, and we will be seeing many more independent filmmakers making their way onto the scene as “traditional gatekeeping” is no longer a factor.
(Curiosity Assignment) Assignment Details:
Acting as a college-level professor, please create a rubric for a paper entitled “” that I have written for sophomore in college-level course . Following this initial prompt I will paste in these texts in order: * Assignment description * Grading rubric * Text of paper You will then write an evaluation of my paper following this format: * 5 strengths of the paper * 5 weaknesses of the paper * 1 paragraph on ways to improve the paper * Grade out of 100 Please be constructive, specific, and encouraging. Understand?
(Curiosity Assignment) Grading Rubric:
0-59 F 60-62 D- 63-66 D 67-69 D+ 70-72 C- 73-76 C 77-79 C+ 80-82 B- 83-86 B 87-89 B+ 90-92 A- 93-96 A 97-99 A+
(Curiosity Assignment) Text of Paper:
This Curiosity Assignment will be on AI yet again, and I have a very special topic for today’s essay. We have already covered how remarkable the change AI is bringing to our world, and at an insane rate too, but one of the newest developments is unlike any other I have seen before. This time, a new kind of robotic technology has been created with the sole purpose of cleaning our oceans of pollutants, an issue that is on the minds of millions of people in our world. A company named Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems (or MPI-IS) may have made a solution for our oceanic troubles that worsen each and every day. Underwater robots are not a new idea by any means, but there are many faults in their current design, ranging from size (they aren’t able to explore tight areas, making them limited), as well as the noise they create from their hydraulic pumps, propulsion systems, and things of that nature. However, they’re proposing a possible solution to this issue; and its name is Jellyfish-Bot. It is a robot that is remarkably small, roughly the size of your hand, and their description of it is as follows: “A Versatile Jellyfish-like Robotic Platform for Effective Underwater Propulsion and Manipulation.” It is quite literally modeled after a jellyfish, and is, as they put it, “versatile, energy-efficient and nearly noise-free.” The way it works is absolutely fascinating; I barely understand most of the technical details, but from what I can tell they have fixed all the possible problems an underwater robot would have. As described in the article, they started with electrohydraulic actuators that serve as the muscles of the jellyfish, then surrounded those muscles with air cushions that stabilize them and make them waterproof simultaneously. The wiring within the robot is what powers it (100 mW is the power needed, which is pretty minuscule all things considered) and are what gives it the ability to swirl and swim like a real jellyfish, although they hope to make wireless ones in the future to make it even more agile. Apparently, the article says “70% of marine litter sinks to the bottom of the ocean”, so that is where they will be, moving and projecting them up to the surface. It is also made of materials that are recyclable, so if at any point one is lost or needs to be broken down, it can be done in an eco-friendly way. As the article describes it, whenever a “jellyfish swims upwards, it can trap objects along its path as it creates currents around its body. In this way, it can also collect nutrients.”, and that is the exact way this robot works; it creates the same current and uses the same motions, which will be how it traps and moves the garbage it finds on the sea-bottom. I find it most remarkable that they are so gentle and silent, they are able to interact with other fish and their ecosystems without disturbing them whatsoever, which makes them the all-around perfect substitute to do this; they are small, effective, and capable of fixing the damage we have done to our oceans without causing any more disturbance.
Task 1 Analysis:
Thank you for providing the assignment details, grading rubric, and your paper. Here’s a detailed critique based on the specified format:
Strengths of the Paper
- Clear Structure: The paper is organized into distinct paragraphs that address each part of the assignment prompt, making it easy to follow.
- Relevant Examples: You effectively highlight specific examples from the filmmaking industry and the music industry, which illustrates the impact of the iPhone and mobile devices on these fields.
- Positive Perspective: The optimistic view on the democratization of filmmaking adds a thoughtful dimension to your analysis, showcasing a forward-looking perspective.
- Engagement with Sources: You make an effort to reference external sources, demonstrating research and an attempt to ground your claims in evidence.
- Imaginative Thinking: The discussion about the future of filmmaking and the notion of “democratization” reflects creative thinking about the societal impacts of technology.
Weaknesses of the Paper
- Lack of Citation Detail: You mention sources but do not provide proper citations (author, year, title) or context for the quotes. This affects the credibility of your claims.
- Limited Exploration of Negative Effects: While you acknowledge who might suffer due to these changes, the discussion is somewhat superficial. More depth here could provide a balanced view.
- Generalization: Statements like “pretty much everyone has one” could be more nuanced, acknowledging socioeconomic disparities in mobile device access.
- Sentence Structure and Clarity: Some sentences are lengthy and could be clearer if broken up. For example, “While that is still sometimes the case…” could be more direct.
- Over-Reliance on Technology as Positive: While it’s good to emphasize benefits, the paper could also explore potential drawbacks of mobile disruption in more detail, such as loss of jobs in traditional industries.
Suggestions for Improvement
To strengthen your paper, focus on incorporating more specific citations to support your claims, including author names and publication years. Additionally, consider expanding your discussion of the negative impacts of mobile technology on certain industries and demographics. This could include exploring issues such as job displacement in traditional media or the challenges faced by those without access to technology. Finally, revising sentences for clarity and conciseness will enhance the overall readability of your paper.
Grade: 75/100
This score reflects the solid structure and imaginative elements of your work, while also noting areas for improvement in citation and depth of analysis. Keep up the effort, and I look forward to seeing how you refine your ideas!
4o mini
You said:
Try again
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Sure! Let’s take another look at your paper with a fresh perspective.
Strengths of the Paper
- Clear Focus: The paper maintains a strong focus on the iPhone’s impact on specific industries, particularly filmmaking and music, which directly addresses the assignment prompt.
- Illustrative Examples: You provide concrete examples of how mobile devices have altered distribution methods in filmmaking and music, making your argument relatable and grounded.
- Optimistic Outlook: The discussion about the democratization of filmmaking is insightful and reflects a positive understanding of technology’s potential to empower individuals.
- Engagement with Societal Impact: You consider broader societal effects, which adds depth to your analysis and shows thoughtfulness about the future landscape of media.
- Imaginative Vision: Your ability to envision a future where independent filmmakers thrive indicates creativity and forward-thinking, making your argument compelling.
Weaknesses of the Paper
- Citations Lacking Detail: While you mention sources, they are not properly cited within the text, which undermines the credibility of your claims and makes it difficult to verify your points.
- Superficial Exploration of Disadvantages: The acknowledgment of those who might be negatively affected is brief. Expanding on this section would provide a more balanced perspective.
- Overgeneralization: Phrases like “pretty much everyone has one” lack nuance. It’s important to acknowledge disparities in access to technology, particularly in socioeconomic contexts.
- Sentence Clarity: Some sentences are lengthy and complex, which can hinder readability. Simplifying your language in certain areas would enhance clarity.
- Limited Depth in Analysis: The discussion of how the “old ways” might completely disappear lacks specific examples of what could be lost, such as traditional film jobs or cultural experiences tied to theaters.
Suggestions for Improvement
To improve your paper, consider revising it to include specific citations for your sources, following a consistent format (e.g., APA or MLA). Delve deeper into the disadvantages associated with the transition to mobile media, offering examples and statistics where applicable. Additionally, clarify your language by breaking down complex sentences and ensuring each point is distinct and easy to understand. Finally, provide a more thorough analysis of the potential losses associated with the decline of traditional media to create a more balanced discussion.
Grade: 73/100
This grade reflects your strong structure and imaginative approach while highlighting the need for improved citations and deeper analysis. Keep up the good work, and I encourage you to build on these strengths in future assignments!
4o mini
You said:
Try again please
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Of course! Here’s another evaluation of your paper with a fresh perspective:
Strengths of the Paper
- Focused Topic: The paper maintains a clear focus on the impact of the iPhone, specifically within the filmmaking and music industries, effectively addressing the assignment prompt.
- Concrete Examples: You use specific examples of streaming platforms and mobile access to illustrate the transformation in content consumption, making your argument relatable.
- Positive Outlook on Technology: The discussion of the democratization of filmmaking presents a hopeful perspective, highlighting the potential for greater accessibility and creativity.
- Engagement with Societal Changes: You thoughtfully consider how the old ways of filmmaking might disappear, showing an awareness of broader cultural implications.
- Imaginative Vision: Your ability to envision a future where anyone can be a filmmaker demonstrates creativity and a forward-thinking mindset.
Weaknesses of the Paper
- Citation Issues: While you reference sources, they lack proper citation formatting, which weakens the credibility of your arguments and makes it difficult to trace your sources.
- Insufficient Exploration of Negative Aspects: The paper briefly mentions who may suffer from these changes but lacks depth. A more nuanced discussion of potential downsides is needed.
- Overgeneralization of Access: Statements like “pretty much everyone has one” oversimplify the reality of technology access. Acknowledging disparities in access would strengthen your argument.
- Sentence Structure: Some sentences are overly complex, which can affect clarity. Simplifying your language would enhance readability.
- Limited Discussion of Traditional Methods: The impact of losing traditional methods is touched upon but could be elaborated. Specific examples of what might be lost would provide a more balanced view.
Suggestions for Improvement
To enhance your paper, focus on providing proper citations for all sources, using a consistent format. This will bolster your credibility and allow readers to reference your materials. Expand on the negative impacts of mobile technology on traditional industries, perhaps including case studies or statistics. Additionally, consider revising your language for clarity by breaking down complex sentences. Finally, elaborate on the cultural and professional losses that could occur with the decline of traditional filmmaking to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
Grade: 76/100
This score reflects a solid understanding of the topic and creative insights, while also highlighting areas for improvement in citation practices and depth of analysis. Keep refining your work, and I look forward to your future submissions!
Curiosity Assignment Analysis:
Thank you for sharing your assignment details, grading rubric, and paper. Here’s a thorough evaluation of your work:
Strengths of the Paper
- Engaging Topic: Your choice to write about the Jellyfish-Bot and its application in cleaning the oceans is both timely and relevant, capturing the reader’s interest in environmental technology.
- Informative Content: You provide detailed descriptions of the Jellyfish-Bot’s design and function, showcasing your understanding of the technology and its potential impact on marine environments.
- Use of Sources: The references to specific articles and data lend credibility to your discussion, suggesting you have engaged with your topic through research.
- Clarity of Purpose: The paper clearly outlines the goal of the Jellyfish-Bot, making it easy for readers to understand its significance in addressing ocean pollution.
- Positive Tone: Your enthusiastic writing style conveys your passion for the subject, making the paper enjoyable to read.
Weaknesses of the Paper
- Lack of Formal Citations: While you reference articles, specific citations (author, title, date) are missing, which diminishes the academic rigor of your work.
- Repetitive Language: Phrases like “remarkably small” and “absolutely fascinating” are used multiple times, leading to redundancy. Varying your language could enhance readability.
- Insufficient Analysis: The paper describes the Jellyfish-Bot well but lacks a deeper analysis of the broader implications of this technology on ocean health and pollution solutions.
- Generalization of Impact: While you mention that the Jellyfish-Bot is effective, providing evidence or statistics about its potential success in cleaning the oceans would strengthen your argument.
- Limited Structure: The paper reads more like a single block of text rather than organized paragraphs. Breaking it up into distinct sections would improve clarity and flow.
Suggestions for Improvement
To improve your paper, consider incorporating proper citations for the sources you reference, ensuring that readers can easily follow your research. Aim to diversify your language to avoid repetition and enhance engagement. Additionally, delve deeper into the implications of the Jellyfish-Bot’s technology for ocean ecosystems, perhaps including potential challenges it might face or comparing it to existing solutions. Finally, restructuring the paper into clear paragraphs with topic sentences will help to organize your thoughts and guide the reader through your analysis.
Grade: 78/100
This grade reflects a solid understanding of the topic and engaging content while highlighting the need for improved citations and deeper analysis. Keep up the enthusiasm for your subject, and I look forward to your next assignment!
4o mini
You said:
Again please
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Certainly! Here’s another evaluation of your paper, focusing on clarity and constructive feedback.
Strengths of the Paper
- Relevant and Important Topic: Your focus on the Jellyfish-Bot and its role in ocean cleanup addresses a critical environmental issue, making it highly relevant.
- Descriptive Detail: You provide thorough explanations of the Jellyfish-Bot’s design and functionality, demonstrating your understanding of the technology involved.
- Engaging Writing Style: Your enthusiastic tone captures the reader’s attention and conveys your passion for the subject, making the topic more approachable.
- Technological Insight: The paper includes specific technical details, such as the use of electrohydraulic actuators and recyclable materials, showcasing a solid grasp of the subject matter.
- Innovative Solution Presentation: By describing how the Jellyfish-Bot mimics natural processes to clean the ocean, you effectively highlight its innovative approach to a complex problem.
Weaknesses of the Paper
- Citation Format: The paper lacks proper citations for the sources mentioned, which is crucial for academic integrity and allows readers to verify your information.
- Repetitive Phrasing: Some phrases and descriptors are used more than once (e.g., “remarkably small,” “absolutely fascinating”), which can make the writing feel redundant.
- Surface-Level Analysis: While the technology is well-described, the paper does not explore broader implications, such as potential environmental challenges or ethical considerations.
- Lack of Structure: The paper would benefit from clearer paragraph organization, with distinct sections for introduction, description, analysis, and conclusion to enhance clarity.
- Missed Opportunities for Depth: You briefly mention that 70% of marine litter sinks, but further exploration of this statistic and its implications for the Jellyfish-Bot’s effectiveness would strengthen your argument.
Suggestions for Improvement
To enhance your paper, start by incorporating proper citations for all sources, adhering to a consistent format (like APA or MLA). This will improve your paper’s credibility. Additionally, work on varying your language to avoid repetition and maintain reader interest. Consider adding more depth to your analysis by discussing the potential impacts of the Jellyfish-Bot on marine ecosystems and any challenges it may face in real-world applications. Finally, reorganize your paper into clearly defined paragraphs to improve the overall flow and coherence of your writing.
Grade: 75/100
This score reflects a strong engagement with an important topic and effective descriptions, while also highlighting the need for improved citation practices and deeper analytical insights. I appreciate your enthusiasm for this subject, and I look forward to seeing your growth in future assignments!
4o mini
You said:
Again please
ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
Absolutely! Here’s another evaluation of your paper with a fresh perspective.
Strengths of the Paper
- Compelling Topic: Your focus on the Jellyfish-Bot as an innovative solution for ocean pollution is timely and relevant, drawing attention to an important environmental issue.
- Detailed Description: You provide an in-depth explanation of how the Jellyfish-Bot operates, including its technical specifications, which showcases your engagement with the subject matter.
- Enthusiastic Tone: The positive and enthusiastic writing style reflects your passion for the topic, making the paper engaging and enjoyable to read.
- Real-World Applications: By discussing how the Jellyfish-Bot could help clean up marine litter, you effectively connect the technology to real-world environmental challenges.
- Visual Imagery: The descriptions of the Jellyfish-Bot’s movements and functions create a vivid picture for the reader, enhancing the understanding of its design.
Weaknesses of the Paper
- Citation Deficiency: The paper lacks formal citations for the sources referenced, which is essential for academic rigor and allows for verification of your claims.
- Repetitive Language: Certain phrases and adjectives are repeated throughout the paper (e.g., “remarkably small”), which can detract from the overall flow and readability.
- Limited Critical Analysis: While you describe the technology well, the paper lacks a deeper exploration of its implications, such as potential limitations or comparisons with existing solutions.
- Paragraph Structure: The paper would benefit from clearer organization, with distinct paragraphs that separate the introduction, description, and analysis, enhancing clarity and flow.
- Surface-Level Statistics: You mention that 70% of marine litter sinks, but further context on this statistic and its relevance to the Jellyfish-Bot’s effectiveness would strengthen your argument.
Suggestions for Improvement
To improve your paper, focus on providing proper citations for all sources to enhance credibility and academic integrity. Additionally, work on varying your language to avoid repetition and improve the overall flow of the paper. Expand your analysis by considering the broader implications of the Jellyfish-Bot, including potential challenges it may face in real-world scenarios and how it compares to other ocean cleanup technologies. Finally, restructure your paper into clearly defined paragraphs to enhance organization and guide the reader through your ideas more effectively.
Grade: 76/100
This score reflects a strong engagement with a relevant topic and detailed descriptions, while also highlighting the need for improved citations and deeper analytical insights. I appreciate your enthusiasm for the subject, and I look forward to seeing your continued development in future assignments!