I think everyone should be getting at least familiar with chatGPT/AI, because it's here to stay.

However,

"Ms. Stapleton decided to do some digging. She reviewed her professor’s slide presentations and discovered other telltale signs of A.I.: distorted text, photos of office workers with extraneous body parts and egregious misspellings."

This is just lazy. It sounds like the professor put no effort into the lesson and just pasted the output directly to slides. I would complain too.

That quote sounds more like the professor was using ChatGPT as a clipart generator to simply liven up the slides. From this description alone, it's not clear that GPT was used for the slide content. "Distorted text" has got to be referring to the garbled letters you see in AI-generated images – not direct ChatGPT text output, which rarely contains misspellings let alone anything garbled.

But some other parts of that article are much clearer and egregious:

> Halfway through the document, which her business professor had made for a lesson on models of leadership, was an instruction to ChatGPT to “expand on all areas. Be more detailed and specific.” It was followed by a list of positive and negative leadership traits, each with a prosaic definition and a bullet-pointed example.

And:

> in a section for comments [on her three-page essay], her professor had accidentally posted a back-and-forth with ChatGPT. It included the grading rubric the professor had asked the chatbot to use and a request for some “really nice feedback” to give Marie

The risk is students not knowing how invested the professor is with the AI output. Is it a “rough draft” with careful refinement, or outright dump and run? No way to know for sure.

With students submitting ChatGPT-generated essays, the professors are merely responding in kind: if you don't care to learn anything save for passing the exam, why should I waste my time crafting lectures when I can generate them?