> Detecting artificial typing patterns is a little more tricky, but also feasible.

Keystroke dynamics can detect artificial typing patterns (copying another source by typing it out manually). If a student has to go way out of their way to make their behavior appear authentic then it's decreasing advantage of cheating and less students will do it.

If the student is integrating answers from multiple AI responses then maybe that's a good thing for them to be learning and the assessment should allow it.

It's not just typing patterns though, it's also how much editing you do, what kinds of edits, where you pause and such.

Manually re-typing another source is something these tools were originally designed to detect. The original issue was "essay mills", not AI.

It will take 0 time to have some (smarter?) student create an AI agent that mimick keystrokes.

Not 0 time, but yes, integrity preservation is an arms race.

The best solutions are in student motivations and optimal pedagogical design. Students who want to learn, and learning systems that are optimized for rate of learning.

That's the best solution. The easiest solution is to move away from homework and into classwork.

In some narrow contexts that is easy, but in many other contexts that is not easy, or doesn't actually solve it.

online programs, limited infrastructure, dishonest students exploiting accessibility programs, are some examples where it's easier to say than do what you're suggesting.

Also AI can help students cheat in class too. Smart glasses, pens with cameras and LED screens on them (yes really), or just regular smart phones. Even switching to pen and paper won't reduce the ease of access.

Instructors don't want to police cheating, they want to teach (or do research). Either way, they don't want to police.

Students cheat when they think what they're learning is low value, the learning process is too clunky, or they place too high a value on the grade. All these imbalances can be improved with better pedagogy.

The only enduring way to actually solve the cheating crisis isn't to make it harder, it's to reduce the value of cheating. Everything else is either temporary or performative.

No, a genuine doc will have a drafting process. You'll edit and change weak parts, etc.

I guess you could use AI to guide this, at which point it's basically a research tool and grammar checker.

Depends how you work. I've rarely (never?) drafted anything and almost all of the first approach ended up in the final result. It would look pretty close to "typed in the AI answer with very minor modifications after". I'm not saying that was a great way to do it, but I definitely wouldn't want to be failed for that.

There is a fractal pattern between authentic and inauthentic writing.

Crude tools (like Google docs revision history) can protect an honest student who engages in a typical editing process from false allegations, but it can also protect a dishonest student who fabricated the evidence, and fail to protect an honest student who didn't do any substantial editing.

More sophisticated tools can do a better job of untangling the fractal, but as with fractal shaped problems the layers of complexity keep going and there's no perfect solutions, just tools that help in some situations when used by competent users.

The higher Ed professors who really care about academic integrity are rare, but they are layering many technical and logistical solutions to fight back against the dishonest students.

I don't mean formal multiple drafts. Even just editing bits, moving stuff around.

I guess some people can type out a 5,000 word assignment linearly from start to finish in 2 hours at 40wpm but that's both incredibly rare and easy to verify upon further investigation.

You got it.

Not really, also the timing of the saves won't reflect the expected work needing to be put in. Unless you are taking the same amount of time to feed in the AI output as a normal student used to actually write / edit the paper, at which point cheating is meaningless