enjay

That's the conclusion I've come to as well!

Maybe the student submitted the work in Braille 🙂 I know of a teacher who gets their screen-reader to read out student assignments sometimes, so actually they could do it with their eyes closed.

Which again is why this wouldn't be used in isolation. If the teacher knows the child to be neurodivergent, they can accommodate that in the assessment from the tool. Also, if the teacher were to compare several pieces of work from a child, they should get a similar score; if one document rates significantly higher for AI than others, that also suggests the child might not have written it. That said, I'm not particularly confident of the accuracy of these tools! I used several different passages generated by ChatGPT and they typically scored around 50%. That's a lot higher than text I know to be human-written, but still not a brilliantly accurate score considering 100% of the text was AI. I also found several AI checkers also have a "humaniser" feature, which brought that score down to less than 5%.

55% human, according to the tool I was using earlier! EDIT - I've just tried a couple of others, and they all flagged that passage as being heavily AI-generated. To address @sigma's comment though, the teacher isn't proposing using the tool in isolation, but as part of the evidence to support their professional judgement based on the child's previous body of work. The article makes exactly that point further down:

Can anyone recommend a good AI detector which is used in their school? Also, what "score" do you consider as evidence something has been AI-written? I put a few different paragraphs from ChatGPT through a checker, and it generally scored them around 55-60% AI, which I could get down to 15% using a "humaniser" tool. Some random paragraphs of my own writing were 2-3%.

So, back to the original question now I know what a VRM is! Is there any reason not to share this information? It's nothing you can't find out by looking in our car park anyway then searching the vehicles on DVLA's website. The document you linked is interesting, but I can see why DVLA refused to provide a private citizen with that information; in that scenario it is for the Police to request it. I've done a bit of Googling, and found the response from a Government agency who got word-for-word the same FOI request recently.

Ah okay, the Estate Manager thought they were asking for something else.

I know that, I'm now wondering if the requester meant to ask for the licence plate / reg number rather than the VRM. It seems odd they haven't asked for those!

Don't give them the plates, or don't give them the VRMs? Actually, they don't ask for the reg numbers, only the VRMs. I wonder if they meant the plates and said VRM by mistake...

An personal email address, but that doesn't mean much with FOIs as even the newspapers use GMail for FOI requests because of better handling of mass emails. The requester didn't identify themselves though.

Has anyone else received this FOI request recently? Dear FOI Officer, Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please provide for each DVLA-registered road vehicle currently owned, leased or operated by (school name): make and model, colour, full DVLA first registration date, MOT issue/expiry date, and VRM. Spreadsheet/table format preferred. If (school name) does not currently own, lease or operate any such vehicles, please confirm this. Kind regards, Our Estate Manager has some reservations about providing the VRM as this could be used to forge V5 documents (and they can't immediately think why anyone would want to know it!).

The longer you keep them on the phone, the more of your voice you give them so they can synthesise it and make deep fake calls and videos which sound convincingly like you - https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/04/asia/deepfake-cfo-scam-hong-kong-intl-hnk

The teachers would have to manage that, and the students remember their pseudonymised login (which also gives them the opportunity to "forget" it for homework purposes!). I'd prefer to use the sign-in with Microsoft which also limits what information is available to just names and email addresses. The code.org registration process asks for their age (mandatory) and gender (optional) but it's still relatively low risk - especially since you can't contact our students anyway.

All code.org would get is students' names and email addresses. For me, this looks like a prime example of risk assessments but our DPO is taking a slightly harder line of "pass/fail" with the DPIA.

Code's own privacy policy says they don't have EU adequacy! "The United States has not sought nor received a finding of “adequacy” from the European Union under Article 45 of the GDPR"