If anyone has any suggestions for an alternative to Google Docs for my university essays that can track my writing literally word for word, I would be forever grateful. Getting really tired of having professors flag me for AI use just because I can string sentences together with an em-dash, and also getting tired of feeding all my essays to Gemini.
It’s not word for word, but a git repository with frequent commits with meaningful descriptions is easy to do, and then you can push to codeberg or wherever to have backups. That’s cryptographically signed and therefore strong evidence of what you wrote when, and what you were thinking.
That’s cryptographically signed and therefore strong evidence of what you wrote when, and what you were thinking.
This logic doesn’t work out in the given place.
Cryptographical signatures are used to determine that the thingy was made by the person you trust.
Problem is, in this case, the creator of those commits is the one that is not being trusted.
The professor will just go, “Oh you made it with AI and then used git commit!”.
I have had a similar experience in the past, where I made some MATLAB code for a Mathematics course, which the professor said I had copied from someone else (pre-AI times), because he had given the same assignment to other people in the university. This, he claimed without even looking at what I made and without remembering the specific question he had passed to me.
There’s still the trace left showing the reasoning, which is harder to fake than a complete document. The commits and commit comments would show a human style of building a narrative.
Yeah, that might make it easier when he feels the need to report the professor to the HOD.
Except it doesn’t matter when the HOD just wants to shit on you, because they can just say that you are good at AI-ing and that’s how you did it.
If anyone has any suggestions for an alternative to Google Docs for my university essays that can track my writing literally word for word, I would be forever grateful. Getting really tired of having professors flag me for AI use just because I can string sentences together with an em-dash, and also getting tired of feeding all my essays to Gemini.
It’s not word for word, but a git repository with frequent commits with meaningful descriptions is easy to do, and then you can push to codeberg or wherever to have backups. That’s cryptographically signed and therefore strong evidence of what you wrote when, and what you were thinking.
This logic doesn’t work out in the given place.
Cryptographical signatures are used to determine that the thingy was made by the person you trust.
Problem is, in this case, the creator of those commits is the one that is not being trusted.
The professor will just go, “Oh you made it with AI and then used
git commit!”.I have had a similar experience in the past, where I made some MATLAB code for a Mathematics course, which the professor said I had copied from someone else (pre-AI times), because he had given the same assignment to other people in the university. This, he claimed without even looking at what I made and without remembering the specific question he had passed to me.
shouldve went to the dean or the department head.
There’s still the trace left showing the reasoning, which is harder to fake than a complete document. The commits and commit comments would show a human style of building a narrative.
Yeah, that might make it easier when he feels the need to report the professor to the HOD.
Except it doesn’t matter when the HOD just wants to shit on you, because they can just say that you are good at AI-ing and that’s how you did it.