AI Cheating is So Out of Hand In America's Schools That the Blue Books Are Coming Back
The Wall Street Journal recently did some digging and has discovered that sales of blue books have been climbing over the past year. Citing data from a number of large public universities, the newspaper notes that bulk purchases of the booklets have grown by leaps and bounds since ChatGPT's launch in late 2022:
Sales of blue books this school year were up more than 30% at Texas A&M University and nearly 50% at the University of Florida. The improbable growth was even more impressive at the University of California, Berkeley. Over the past two academic years, blue-book sales at the Cal Student Store were up 80%. Demand for blue books is suddenly booming again because they help solve a problem that didn't exist on campuses until now.
Surely those of us who came of age before the current one remember the blue book as an unfortunate staple of the pre-digital educational experience. I can certainly remember filling out my fair share of them in college, and I also remember them being no walk in the park. As a student, you're often given a very short amount of time to frantically scrawl an 'analytical' essay inside of one as a means of demonstrating to your professor your 'mastery' over a particular subject. I remember the pages being too small, the ruled lines being too large, and the general experience of using the dreaded booklets to be no fun.
Now, however, as AI tears through America's elite educational system, lobotomizing tomorrow's young leaders as it goes, could it be that blue books have been refashioned from a villain of the pre-AI age to a hero for our algorithmically-poisoned times? More and more, it seems like they're the dark knight that America's illiterate masses needs. The Journal notes that Roaring Spring Paper Products, the family-owned paper company that produces a majority of the blue books that are sold on college campuses, admits that the new AI era has ironically been good for its business.
Yet while the return of blue books may be a step in the right direction, they surely aren't a fix-all for the broad variety of ills caused by students' AI-use. Philip D. Bunn, an assistant professor at the Covenant College in Georgia, recently wrote on his blog that the traditional essay (which, until ChatGPT came along, was a great indicator of a student's intellectual capacity and was very difficult to fake unless you went to the trouble of hiring a ghostwriter) cannot be replaced by the in-class essay. Bunn writes that 'the process of writing a paper outside of class cannot simply be replicated in a blue book exam, and something serious is lost if we give up entirely on the traditional essay, whether those essays are more analytic, argumentative, or research-based.'
Indeed, if the return of pen and paper is a promising sign, America's educators aren't out of the woods yet—not even close. A recent survey found that 89% of college students had admitted to using ChatGPT to complete a homework assignment. AI-detection tools designed to spot cheating also routinely fail. Increasingly, America's youth seem to view their educations as a high-stakes video game to be algorithmically juked. In short, more drastic measures (like the formulation of new laws and regulations around AI use) may need to be taken if the onset of America's aggressive stupidification is to be halted.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
8 hours ago
- Forbes
OpenAI: ChatGPT Wants Legal Rights. You Need The Right To Be Forgotten.
As systems like ChatGPT move toward achieving legal privilege, the boundaries between identity, ... More memory, and control are being redefined, often without consent. When OpenAI CEO Sam Altman recently stated that conversations with ChatGPT should one day enjoy legal privilege, similar to those between a patient and a doctor or a client and a lawyer, he wasn't just referring to privacy. He was pointing toward a redefinition of the relationship between people and machines. Legal privilege protects the confidentiality of certain relationships. What's said between a patient and physician, or a client and attorney, is shielded from subpoenas, court disclosures, and adversarial scrutiny. Extending that same protection to AI interactions means treating the machine not as a tool, but as a participant in a privileged exchange. This is more than a policy suggestion. It's a legal and philosophical shift with consequences no one has fully reckoned with. It also comes at a time when the legal system is already being tested. In The New York Times' lawsuit against OpenAI, the paper has asked courts to compel the company to preserve all user prompts, including those the company says are deleted after 30 days. That request is under appeal. Meanwhile, Altman's suggestion that AI chats deserve legal shielding raises the question: if they're protected like therapy sessions, what does that make the system listening on the other side? People are already treating AI like a confidant. According to Common Sense Media, three in four teens have used an AI chatbot, and over half say they trust the advice they receive at least somewhat. Many describe a growing reliance on these systems to process everything from school to relationships. Altman himself has called this emotional over-reliance 'really bad and dangerous.' But it's not just teens. AI is being integrated into therapeutic apps, career coaching tools, HR systems, and even spiritual guidance platforms. In some healthcare environments, AI is being used to draft communications and interpret lab data before a doctor even sees it. These systems are present in decision-making loops, and their presence is being normalized. This is how it begins. First, protect the conversation. Then, protect the system. What starts as a conversation about privacy quickly evolves into a framework centered on rights, autonomy, and standing. We've seen this play out before. In U.S. law, corporations were gradually granted legal personhood, not because they were considered people, but because they acted as consistent legal entities that required protection and responsibility under the law. Over time, personhood became a useful legal fiction. Something similar may now be unfolding with AI—not because it is sentient, but because it interacts with humans in ways that mimic protected relationships. The law adapts to behavior, not just biology. The Legal System Isn't Ready For What ChatGPT Is Proposing There is no global consensus on how to regulate AI memory, consent, or interaction logs. The EU's AI Act introduces transparency mandates, but memory rights are still undefined. In the U.S., state-level data laws conflict, and no federal policy yet addresses what it means to interact with a memory‑enabled AI. (See my recent Forbes piece on why AI regulation is effectively dead—and what businesses need to do instead.) The physical location of a server is not just a technical detail. It's a legal trigger. A conversation stored on a server in California is subject to U.S. law. If it's routed through Frankfurt, it becomes subject to GDPR. When AI systems retain memory, context, and inferred consent, the server location effectively defines sovereignty over the interaction. That has implications for litigation, subpoenas, discovery, and privacy. 'I almost wish they'd go ahead and grant these AI systems legal personhood, as if they were therapists or clergy,' says technology attorney John Kheit. 'Because if they are, then all this passive data collection starts to look a lot like an illegal wiretap, which would thereby give humans privacy rights/protections when interacting with AI. It would also, then, require AI providers to disclose 'other parties to the conversation', i.e., that the provider is a mining party reading the data, and if advertisers are getting at the private conversations.' Infrastructure choices are now geopolitical. They determine how AI systems behave under pressure and what recourse a user has when something goes wrong. And yet, underneath all of this is a deeper motive: monetization. But they won't be the only ones asking questions. Every conversation becomes a four-party exchange: the user, the model, the platform's internal optimization engine, and the advertiser paying for access. It's entirely plausible for a prompt about the Pittsburgh Steelers to return a response that subtly inserts 'Buy Coke' mid-paragraph. Not because it's relevant—but because it's profitable. Recent research shows users are significantly worse at detecting unlabeled advertising when it's embedded inside AI-generated content. Worse, these ads are initially rated as more trustworthy until users discover they are, in fact, ads. At that point, they're also rated as more manipulative. 'In experiential marketing, trust is everything,' says Jeff Boedges, Founder of Soho Experiential. 'You can't fake a relationship, and you can't exploit it without consequence. If AI systems are going to remember us, recommend things to us, or even influence us, we'd better know exactly what they remember and why. Otherwise, it's not personalization. It's manipulation.' Now consider what happens when advertisers gain access to psychographic modeling: 'Which users are most emotionally vulnerable to this type of message?' becomes a viable, queryable prompt. And AI systems don't need to hand over spreadsheets to be valuable. With retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), the model can shape language in real time based on prior sentiment, clickstream data, and fine-tuned advertiser objectives. This isn't hypothetical—it's how modern adtech already works. At that point, the chatbot isn't a chatbot. It's a simulation environment for influence. It is trained to build trust, then designed to monetize it. Your behavioral patterns become the product. Your emotional response becomes the target for optimization. The business model is clear: black-boxed behavioral insight at scale, delivered through helpful design, hidden from oversight, and nearly impossible to detect. We are entering a phase where machines will be granted protections without personhood, and influence without responsibility. If a user confesses to a crime during a legally privileged AI session, is the platform compelled to report it or remain silent? And who makes that decision? These are not edge cases. They are coming quickly. And they are coming at scale. Why ChatGPT Must Remain A Model—and Why Humans Must Regain Consent As generative AI systems evolve into persistent, adaptive participants in daily life, it becomes more important than ever to reassert a boundary: models must remain models. They cannot assume the legal, ethical, or sovereign status of a person quietly. And the humans generating the data that train these systems must retain explicit rights over their contributions. What we need is a standardized, enforceable system of data contracting, one that allows individuals to knowingly, transparently, and voluntarily contribute data for a limited, mutually agreed-upon window of use. This contract must be clear on scope, duration, value exchange, and termination. And it must treat data ownership as immutable, even during active use. That means: When a contract ends, or if a company violates its terms, the individual's data must, by law, be erased from the model, its training set, and any derivative products. 'Right to be forgotten' must mean what it says. But to be credible, this system must work both ways: This isn't just about ethics. It's about enforceable, mutual accountability. The user experience must be seamless and scalable. The legal backend must be secure. And the result should be a new economic compact—where humans know when they're participating in AI development, and models are kept in their place. ChatGPT Is Changing the Risk Surface. Here's How to Respond. The shift toward AI systems as quasi-participants—not just tools—will reshape legal exposure, data governance, product liability, and customer trust. Whether you're building AI, integrating it into your workflows, or using it to interface with customers, here are five things you should be doing immediately: ChatGPT May Get Privilege. You Should Get the Right to Be Forgotten. This moment isn't just about what AI can do. It's about what your business is letting it do, what it remembers, and who gets access to that memory. Ignore that, and you're not just risking privacy violations, you're risking long-term brand trust and regulatory blowback. At the very least, we need a legal framework that defines how AI memory is governed. Not as a priest, not as a doctor, and not as a partner, but perhaps as a witness. Something that stores information and can be examined when context demands it, with clear boundaries on access, deletion, and use. The public conversation remains focused on privacy. But the fundamental shift is about control. And unless the legal and regulatory frameworks evolve rapidly, the terms of engagement will be set, not by policy or users, but by whoever owns the box. Which is why, in the age of AI, the right to be forgotten may become the most valuable human right we have. Not just because your data could be used against you—but because your identity itself can now be captured, modeled, and monetized in ways that persist beyond your control. Your patterns, preferences, emotional triggers, and psychological fingerprints don't disappear when the session ends. They live on inside a system that never forgets, never sleeps, and never stops optimizing. Without the ability to revoke access to your data, you don't just lose privacy. You lose leverage. You lose the ability to opt out of prediction. You lose control over how you're remembered, represented, and replicated. The right to be forgotten isn't about hiding. It's about sovereignty. And in a world where AI systems like ChatGPT will increasingly shape our choices, our identities, and our outcomes, the ability to walk away may be the last form of freedom that still belongs to you.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class
There are many questions that don't have simple answers, either because they're too complex or they're hypothetical. One such question is what it might mean for billionaires to pay taxes at the same rate as the upper middle class, whose income starts, on average, at around $168,000, depending on where you live. Find Out: Read Next: ChatGPT may not be an oracle, but it can analyze information and offer trends and patterns, so I asked it what would happen if billionaires were required to pay anywhere near as much as the upper middle class. Here's what it said. A Fatter Government Larder For starters, ChatGPT said that if billionaires paid taxes like the upper middle class, the government would bring in a lot more money — potentially hundreds of billions of dollars more every year. 'That's because most billionaires don't make their money from salaries like upper-middle-class workers do. Instead, they grow their wealth through investments–stocks, real estate, and businesses–which are often taxed at much lower rates or not taxed at all until the assets are sold,' ChatGPT told me. Billionaire income is largely derived from capital appreciation, not wages. In other words, they make money on their money through interest. And as of yet, the U.S. tax code doesn't tax 'unrealized capital gains' so until you sell your assets, you could amass millions in appreciation and not pay a dime on it, ChatGPT shared. Learn More: What Do Billionaires Pay in Taxes? Right now, many billionaires pay an effective tax rate of around 8% or less, thanks to loopholes and tax strategies. Meanwhile, upper-middle-class households earning, say, $250,000 might pay around 20% to 24% of their income in taxes. (Keep in mind that the government doesn't apply one tax bracket to all income. You pay tax in layers, according to the IRS. As your income goes up, the tax rate on the next layer of income is higher. So you pay 12% on the first $47,150, then 22% on $47,151 to $100,525 and so on). So, if billionaires were taxed at the same rate as those upper-middle-class wage earners, 'it would level the playing field–and raise a ton of revenue that could be used for things like infrastructure, education or healthcare,' ChatGPT said. The Impact on Wealth Equality I wondered if taxing billionaires could have any kind of impact on wealth equality, as well. While it wouldn't put more money in other people's pockets, 'it could increase trust in the tax system, showing that the wealthiest aren't playing by a different set of rules,' ChatGPT said. It would also help curb 'the accumulation of dynastic wealth,' where the richest families essentially hoard wealth for generations without contributing proportionally to the system. But it's not a magic bullet. 'Wealth inequality is rooted in more than just taxes–wages, education access, housing costs, and corporate ownership all play a role,' ChatGPT said. Billionaires paying taxes doesn't stop them from being billionaires, either, it pointed out. Taxing Billionaires Is Not That Simple While in theory billionaires paying higher taxes 'would shift a much bigger share of the tax burden onto the very wealthy,' ChatGPT wrote, billionaires are not as liquid as they may seem. 'A lot of billionaire wealth is tied up in things like stocks they don't sell, so taxing that would require big changes to how the tax code works.' Also, billionaires are good at finding loopholes and account strategies — it might be hard to enforce. What's a Good Middle Ground? We don't live in a black and white world, however. There's got to be a middle ground, so I asked ChatGPT if there is a way to tax billionaires more, even if it's not quite how the upper middle class are taxed. A likely compromise would come from a policy decision, which isn't likely to be forthcoming anytime soon. President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill only offered more tax breaks to the wealthiest. However, policy proposals that have been floated, include: A minimum tax on billionaires where they might pay around 20% of their overall income Limiting deductions and closing tax loopholes that allow them to significantly reduce taxable income Tax unrealized gains (those assets that have only earned but not yet been sold), gradually. ChatGPT agreed that billionaires could pay more than they currently do, even if they don't pay exactly what upper-middle-class workers pay in percentage terms. 'The key is to design policies that are fair, enforceable, and politically feasible.' I asked how realistic such policy proposals are, and ChatGPT told me what I already knew: They're 'moderately realistic' but only with the 'right political alignment.' More From GOBankingRates 9 Downsizing Tips for the Middle Class To Save on Monthly Expenses This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT What Would Happen If Billionaires Paid Taxes at the Same Rate as the Upper Middle Class Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Inicia sesión para acceder a tu portafolio Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información Se produjo un error al recuperar la información
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
I Asked ChatGPT If Trump's Tax Bill Will Affect Social Security Checks: Here's What It Said
Social media has been buzzing with claims that President Donald Trump's new tax bill eliminates federal income taxes on Social Security benefits entirely. Sounds too good to be true, right? Find Out: Read Next: Well, I asked ChatGPT to break down what's actually in Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' in regard to Social Security so we can see where we all stand. Spoiler alert: It's not quite the game-changer some people think it is. What ChatGPT Said the Law Actually Does According to our artificial intelligence fact-checker, Trump's new bill does not eliminate federal income taxes on Social Security benefits despite what you might have seen on your uncle's Facebook post. Instead, here's what it really does: Creates a temporary enhanced standard deduction: Seniors ages 65 and older can claim an additional $6,000 standard deduction on their federal income taxes from 2025 through 2028. But there's a catch — it phases out for individuals with modified adjusted gross income above $75,000 (or $150,000 for couples filing jointly). About 88% of seniors benefit: ChatGPT estimates that nearly 9 in 10 Social Security recipients will owe no federal income tax — not because their benefits suddenly became untaxed, but because their deductions now fully offset their taxable income. It's temporary, not permanent: This isn't a permanent suspension of Social Security taxes. It's a temporary and income-limited deduction — basically a workaround that avoids Senate budget rules. Be Aware: What It Definitely Doesn't Do ChatGPT was clear about the limitations: It doesn't repeal the taxation of Social Security benefits — Lower-income retirees already paid little or no tax anyway. Doesn't affect those under age 65, regardless of whether they receive benefits. Doesn't prevent future taxability after the deduction expires in 2028. How This Actually Affects Your Check Here's where it gets interesting. If you're 65 or older, earn below those income thresholds and it's between 2025-2028, your taxable income gets reduced — meaning less or no tax withheld from your Social Security. But your actual Social Security monthly payment doesn't increase. You're simply paying less federal income tax on the money you already receive. Think of it as keeping more of what you already get rather than getting more in the first place. After 2028? Unless Congress renews the deduction, taxes on benefits are likely to return to exactly where they were before. The Hidden Cost Nobody's Talking About This is where ChatGPT delivered some sobering news about the long-term consequences. Since taxes on Social Security benefits help fund the Social Security Trust Fund and Medicare, this deduction actually speeds up insolvency — by an estimated six to 12 months earlier than previously projected. The trust fund is now expected to run dry by 2033, down from earlier projections, partly because of this deduction. Without trust fund dollars, payroll taxes alone could still fund roughly three-quarters of benefits. But Wait, There's More (And It's Not Good) While the new tax deduction sounds like a win for seniors, there are some serious tradeoffs to consider. The Temporary Problem The extra $6,000 standard deduction for seniors 65 and older expires after 2028 unless Congress renews it. That means seniors could see their tax bills rise again in 2029, especially if they've adjusted their finances assuming this was permanent. It's a potential 'tax cliff' waiting to happen in just four years. Age Discrimination in the Tax Code If you're under 65 but receiving Social Security — say, for disability or early retirement — you get zero benefit from this deduction. Critics argue this creates age-based inequality even among Social Security recipients. For example: A 62-year-old on Social Security Disability Insurance gets no tax break, while a 66-year-old with higher income might save thousands. The Reality Check on Benefits The bill doesn't boost benefit payments at all. Your monthly check stays exactly the same — it only affects how much gets taxed. If you already don't owe taxes (about half of recipients), you get no additional help whatsoever. For many low-income seniors, this legislation literally does nothing. The Insolvency Acceleration This is the big one. Taxes on Social Security benefits help fund the trust fund, so reducing that revenue makes the system run out of money faster. The projection is now around 2033, possibly sooner. That could lead to future benefit cuts unless lawmakers make changes. Today's small tax break could result in tomorrow's big benefit reductions. Slightly High Earners Still Pay The deduction phases out at $75,000 for individual income or $150,000 for joint income. Seniors with savings, investments or pensions may not qualify — and may feel misled by messaging about 'no tax on Social Security.' It's not actually a full repeal of Social Security taxation. Many upper-middle-class retirees still pay tax on their benefits. The Reform Distraction Some critics argue this is a 'band-aid' policy that avoids the hard but necessary choices needed to fix Social Security long term. By offering a short-term tax break, it may reduce the urgency to create lasting solutions — like strengthening funding or adjusting payouts fairly. The Bottom Line According to AI ChatGPT's analysis suggests this legislation is more complex than the headlines suggest. Most critics view the deduction as a temporary, politically motivated measure that doesn't solve long-term funding challenges, complicates the tax system and offers uneven benefits to seniors. The AI warns that the real cost will likely be paid later — through higher taxes, fewer benefits or both. If you're 65 or older and have income under the limits, you'll probably pay less federal tax on your Social Security from 2025-2028. Your monthly Social Security check stays the same, but tax withholding may decrease or disappear entirely. Just remember: This is a temporary tax break, not a permanent repeal. After 2028, expect taxes on your benefits to return unless Congress acts again. Meanwhile, the Social Security trust fund will be depleted sooner, increasing pressure for reforms like raising the retirement age, cutting benefits or raising taxes. More From GOBankingRates Mark Cuban Warns of 'Red Rural Recession' -- 4 States That Could Get Hit Hard 6 Big Shakeups Coming to Social Security in 2025 The New Retirement Problem Boomers Are Facing This article originally appeared on I Asked ChatGPT If Trump's Tax Bill Will Affect Social Security Checks: Here's What It Said
