Students Around the World are Using AI-Powered Smart Glasses to Cheat on Tests
- Reference: 0184143794
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/06/27/1926233/students-around-the-world-are-using-ai-powered-smart-glasses-to-cheat-on-tests
- Source link:
> Already, countries are stepping up inspections for test-takers. For China's [2]grueling annual college entrance exam earlier this month — which more than 10 million hopefuls take each year — authorities required screening of all glasses. In the United Kingdom, the head of England's exam watchdog warned earlier this month that AI glasses and smart devices like earpieces could [3]worsen cheating in exams... [T]wo incidents in South Korea were the country's first reported cases of cheating with AI glasses... In Taiwan, the university where a prospective student was caught cheating is now reviewing rules and standard operating procedures for AI eyewears during examinations.
>
> But experts worry these individual cases point to a more widespread issue. "If we're seeing a few cases being reported, we're seeing a lot more cases not being reported," said Thomas Corbin, lecturer at Deakin University in Australia, who has conducted research around the usage of AI-powered glasses and other smart devices in academic assessment. With the rapid development of AI technology, however, smart glasses are becoming slimmer, less noticeable, while integrating AI models that can operate independently with connectivity, raising concerns not only about exam integrity, but also about broader privacy risks... "Wearable AI is as much of a challenge to exams as ChatGPT was to essays in 2022 and I just don't think there is any real way that we can reliably have exam practices moving forward," Corbin said.
[1] https://www.cnn.com/2026/06/26/asia/ai-glasses-cheating-exams-intl-hnk
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-h13gktA7Y&list=PL6XRrncXkMaU2KTgzzxT6XwqmkNaFQCdV&index=2
[3] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cheating-in-exams-with-high-tech-smart-devices-poses-growing-threat-warns-ofqual-chief-in-new-podcast
Really? (Score:3)
Really? Where are the proctors?
There are no smart glasses on the market that can hide what they are. Everyone and their dog can identify smart glasses from across the room. So, how is this a thing?
Furthermore, if we are supposed to believe and accept that they are going unnoticed and getting in to exam rooms, how are we able to get these numbers on cheaters undetected?
This is Facebook drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
> Furthermore, if we are supposed to believe and accept that they are going unnoticed and getting in to exam rooms, how are we able to get these numbers on cheaters undetected?
This argument has no merit. Provide credible anonymity and the right environment, and people will admit it. Works a bit like exit-polls.
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have any of those things? No. All we have is your supposition based on an, admittedly plausible, scenario of your own contrivance.
Yet you have the audacity to say my statement has no merit. LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
However, if we commit the ultimate Slashdot sin and actually read the article, we find out they never claimed to have numbers. The closest they come is
> “If we’re seeing a few cases being reported, we’re seeing a lot more cases not being reported,” said Thomas Corbin, lecturer at Deakin University in Australia, who has conducted research around the usage of AI-powered glasses and other smart devices in academic assessment.
which is pretty clearly and openly straight speculation. It is y
Re: (Score:2)
Did I claim they were doing this? Nope. That is all your imagination. I just pointed out that, contrary to your faulty reasoning, this can be done.
"Audacity" indeed...
Re: (Score:2)
No idea how accurate the article is, but corruption is endemic in societies that base futures off of a single test. It seems that test-focus and corruption go hand in hand.
Agreed. (Score:2)
Testing can be done under conditions that make cheating impractically hard. It just takes a little effort on the part of those giving the tests.
Block the radio waves (Score:2)
For now at least, wearables require radio frequencies to work.
So block the radiowaves.
[1]https://www.homedepot.com/pep/... [homedepot.com]
Paint the room with EMF shielding and you do not have to worry about any connections - not cellular, not bluetooth, nothing.
[1] https://www.homedepot.com/pep/WOREMOR-RF-IE50-Radio-Frequency-5G-and-EMF-Shielding-Paint-5L-RF-IE50-5L/317398595?mtc=SHOPPING-BF-CDP-BNG-D24-024_015_INT_PAINT-NA-NA-NA-PMAX-NA-NA-NA-NA-NBR-NA-NA-NA-2026_FAPMAX&cm_mmc=SHOPPING-BF-CDP-BNG-D24-024_015_INT_PAINT-NA-NA-NA-PMAX-NA-NA-NA-NA-NBR-NA-NA-NA-2026_FAPMAX-23550141314--&msclkid=2cf804ebe39a12ac974e6eaabb3af1e9&gclid=2cf804ebe39a12ac974e6eaabb3af1e9&gclsrc=3p.ds&gad_source=7&gad_campaignid=23550141314
Re: (Score:2)
That's why they talk about AI. This can (or will be able to soon) run on the device itself. On the other hand, one might also be able to just access a textbook on the device itself with the same result.
No one saw that coming (Score:2)
At least not if they were wearing AI glasses imposing VR advertising for next month's improved AI glasses.
Obligatory joke for low hanging fruit.
Adam Smith's biggest mistake was stealing the invisible hand's cloak of invisibility. Mostly downhill since then, now at AI-enhanced speeds.
They are only cheating themselves (Score:2)
At lkeast if the subject in question is somthng that are buillt on in courses they have in later years. Because if juo don't know the matereal well enough to pass, you will struggle unnecessarily when you hit courses that excerpts that the material tested on the exam you cheated on to be already known. Ofc this argument completely fails for subjects you just take to fill in credit qoutas . Or if the cheting iss more to inflate grades than to pjus simply pass the class
Kids have it easy today (Score:2)
In my ay, we had to rely on bribes and neopotism to get into goood schools, no fancey technology to help us.
more risk in exams, less broader risks (Score:2)
The conclusion seems slightly off. Using local AI instead of cloud services increases the risk of cheating in exams (if they try to shield rooms against network access), but at the same time increases privacy for everyone who is filmed by the classes.
They are only cheating themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
The other take-away is that tests are pretty useless anyways. I have known that since I started teaching.
Re: (Score:3)
I would have loved to hear "tests are pretty useless" 40 years ago -- I was terrified of tests, and scraped through university.
I got 10% on one mid-term, which earned me an interview with the VP Academic of the university, who was also the prof. He grilled me on the material (thermodynamics), and I did just fine. He said, "You seem to know the material -- do you just not do well on tests?", and I said, Nope, never have. His answer: "Huh."
I had to continue to write exams, and continued to do poorly. I would
Re: (Score:2)
Your experience does not surprise me. While I test well (I research the examiner, past exams and their "way of thinking"), I think test-preparations are basically a waste of time and rarely serve as additional repetition. What I made good experiences with is student presentations, in-semester projects and oral exams.
But here is the dirty secret: Written exams are a lot less work and you can even fob off a lot of the work to assistants. There are also "test banks" (tests sold confidentially with books) and t
Re: (Score:2)
> I would have loved to hear "tests are pretty useless" 40 years ago -- I was terrified of tests, and scraped through university.
> I got 10% on one mid-term, which earned me an interview with the VP Academic of the university, who was also the prof. He grilled me on the material (thermodynamics), and I did just fine. He said, "You seem to know the material -- do you just not do well on tests?", and I said, Nope, never have. His answer: "Huh."
> I had to continue to write exams, and continued to do poorly. I would have been thrilled to have a one-on-one session instead of an exam.
Yea. A number of my engineering profs offered an oral exam vs a test if you wanted it. Later in grad school, they didn't and one class (accounting) I did poorly on tests (I'm an engineer, close is good enough for airplanes) and would go over tehste with my prof, who said I know the material I just have trouble adding and subtracting...
Re: (Score:2)
Oral exams are the best way, but how do you do them when you have hundreds of students? That's the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true.
Re:They are only cheating themselves (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the alternative? Completely subjective grades that are assigned to the students by their teachers?
(That was meant to be rhetorical, since that is obviously even more worthless).
Given the economic opportunities that grades open up, I don't think it is fair to say "they are only cheating themselves." They are cheating others out of work and/or scholarship money, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is another well-kept secret: Grades _are_ always subjective. By unfair (but legally sound) correction, you can massively change grades. I have experimentally done it (not for actual grades but with actual exams) just to see how large my responsibility to be fair really is. It is huge. I now mix exams after correcting each question and I make sure not to look at the names, just to remain impartial and fair.
Incidentally, the same is possible for automatic grading. How? You have a look at the exercises. T