Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the rising trend of universities checking for AI-generated content in student papers, highlighting the implications for both students and educational institutions [4][5][10]. Group 1: AI Detection in Academia - A significant number of universities have begun requiring students to submit AI feature content in their papers, driven by concerns over academic integrity and the misuse of AI tools [5][12]. - The emergence of services that help students reduce AI content in their submissions has created a new industry, adding to students' financial burdens [13]. Group 2: Reliability of AI Detection Tools - Current AI detection methods are criticized for their lack of definitive proof, often only indicating a percentage of AI characteristics without conclusive evidence [8][9]. - The article points out that many AI companies are hesitant to make strong claims about their detection capabilities, reflecting uncertainty in the reliability of these tools [15]. Group 3: Academic Writing and AI - The process of checking for AI content is compared to the role of interns in journalism, where the focus should be on the quality of questions and research rather than the source of the content [22][26]. - The article argues that the essence of academic writing lies in the research question, and the use of AI should not detract from the learning process [29][34]. Group 4: Historical Context of Technology Fear - The article draws parallels between current fears surrounding AI and past societal concerns about internet addiction, suggesting that such fears may be exaggerated [36][37].

Group 1 - The article discusses the emerging trend of universities requiring students to submit AI feature content in their theses, indicating a growing concern over the use of AI in academic work [4][6][12] - This trend has potentially created a new revenue stream for companies like CNKI, which is part of Tongfang Co., as students increasingly pay for AI detection services [5][20] - Some universities have set strict limits on acceptable AI feature content, with some requiring it to be below 15% for undergraduate papers, leading to the emergence of services that help students reduce AI content [17][19] Group 2 - The reliability of AI detection tools is questioned, as many AI vendors are hesitant to definitively state that a piece of work was generated by AI, often only providing a percentage of AI feature content [13][21] - The article compares the process of checking AI content to the role of interns in research and writing, suggesting that the core skill in journalism and academic writing is the ability to ask the right questions rather than the method of content generation [32][34] - Concerns about AI in academia echo past fears regarding internet addiction, highlighting a historical pattern of anxiety surrounding new technologies [46][50]