We need a pair of mischievous cheating-detectors, one that always returns "no cheating detected", and one that always returns "AI cheating confirmed".
In the presence of an accusing teacher, saying "well, but... but... it's not always accurate" makes a person look weak. Unfortunately, this schoolyard-level logic prevails even among adults too often.
But if the accused can say "okay, that website claims there's a 90% chance I cheated, but here's another website that says there's a 99.9% chance I didn't cheat". That muddies the waters and then suddenly the accusing teacher is receptive to discussing the merits of cheat detection. For example, the teacher might say "well, nobody knows how your website detects the cheating, nobody knows how it works!", to which you reply that we don't know how the website the teacher uses works either.
Throwing in an accusation that the teacher's own syllabus was written by AI (using the other mischievous website) makes things even more fun. Again, the point being to force a discussion on the merits of cheat detection.
In the presence of an accusing teacher, saying "well, but... but... it's not always accurate" makes a person look weak. Unfortunately, this schoolyard-level logic prevails even among adults too often.
But if the accused can say "okay, that website claims there's a 90% chance I cheated, but here's another website that says there's a 99.9% chance I didn't cheat". That muddies the waters and then suddenly the accusing teacher is receptive to discussing the merits of cheat detection. For example, the teacher might say "well, nobody knows how your website detects the cheating, nobody knows how it works!", to which you reply that we don't know how the website the teacher uses works either.
Throwing in an accusation that the teacher's own syllabus was written by AI (using the other mischievous website) makes things even more fun. Again, the point being to force a discussion on the merits of cheat detection.