Chat GPT Produces a Disrespectful Cartoon by Accident

I asked Chat GPT to:

Chat GPT generated cartoon,
from a prompt by Tom Worthington,
CC-BY 23 September 2025

'Draw a cartoon of the Australian prime minister as a school child, pointing to palestine on a map of the world, with the foreign minister, Penny Wong as the teacher, saying "Well done Albo!". The caption should be "Australia Recognises Palestine".' 

Curiously, Chat GPT said "I’ll avoid anything offensive or disrespectful", but got the location of Palestine wrong, giving the cartoon more of a sting. This is an aspect of Generative AI we needed to keep in mind and teach students.

Team Based Learning Helped with Remote Learning

Larry K. Michaelsen

Greetings from day 2 of the Team-Based Learning Collaborative Asia Pacific Community Symposium. The keynote today is Larry K. Michaelsen, pioneer of Team Based Learning (TBL). He said that teams formed slower online than face to face, also that technology had provided more options for prework. Also Dr Michaelsen reminisced about the marked sense card readers which were used for scanning student responses before laptops and smart phones were used. He pointed out that part of the team bonding process was filling out the one joint response. 

A key point for me was that this team building process could occur in asynchronous mode. That is Dr Michaelsen said that as long as there was a deadline for the team response to be submitted, the participants could be anywhere, arranging their own work. 

Dr Michaelsen suggested AI would have more difficulty answering TBL questions, as they are very specific. He gave the example of "Where would you locate a dry cleaning business in Norman Oklahoma, and why?". So I asked ChatGPT, and it gavce a very generic response, which an assor would not be impressed with. When I asked for more specific locations, it gave answers Dr Michaelsen said that anyone who knows Norman would know are not good locations:

"Determining the ideal location for a dry cleaning business in Norman, Oklahoma would depend on various factors such as target market, competition, accessibility, and zoning regulations. Here are some considerations to help you decide on a suitable location:

1. Commercial Areas: Look for commercial areas with a mix of retail and service-oriented businesses. Areas with a high concentration of offices, hotels, or shopping centers can attract potential customers who may need dry cleaning services.

2. Residential Neighborhoods: Consider placing the dry cleaning business in or near residential neighborhoods, as this would make it convenient for local residents to access your services. Proximity to residential areas can generate regular and loyal customers.

3. Proximity to Offices or Corporate Parks: If you are targeting the professional working population, setting up near offices, corporate parks, or business districts may be advantageous. Many professionals require dry cleaning services for their work attire.

4. Accessibility and Parking: Choose a location with easy access and sufficient parking space. Customers prefer convenience, and a location with ample parking makes it more convenient for them to drop off and pick up their items.

5. Competitor Analysis: Assess the competition in different areas. If there are already established dry cleaning businesses in a particular location, evaluate whether there is room for another competitor or if there's an underserved market elsewhere.

6. Demographics: Understand the demographics of the area. Consider factors such as income levels, age groups, and lifestyles of the residents to ensure that your services align with the needs of the local community.

7. Zoning Regulations: Check local zoning regulations to ensure that the chosen location complies with any restrictions related to operating a dry cleaning business. Some areas may have specific zoning requirements for businesses that use certain chemicals.

8. Visibility and Signage: Choose a location with good visibility from the road, and invest in clear and attractive signage. This will help attract passing traffic and make your business easily identifiable.

9. Cost Considerations: Evaluate the cost of renting or purchasing space in different areas. Balance the costs with the potential customer base and revenue generation of each location.

10. Future Growth: Consider the potential for future growth and development in the chosen location. An area that is experiencing growth may attract more customers over time.

Ultimately, a comprehensive analysis of the local market and careful consideration of these factors will help you determine the most suitable location for your dry cleaning business in Norman, Oklahoma."

One of the delegates suggested occasionally tell the students to turn off their gadgets. Dr Michaelsen suggested then asking studnts to reflect on the differences in the experience. However, I suggest the instructors need to also reflect on what technology they are dependent on: would the be willing to turn off the lights and air-conditioning in the room, turn off their hearing aid, take off their glasses? One generations new tech is just routine for the next. While is is tempting to think of the good old days, some technology is so useful it is worth becoming dependent on it.  

Weaponizing ChatGPT

Professor Sarah Kreps,
Cornell University

Since late last year I have been part of presenting, and attended, many seminars on ChatGPT, but this is a first: "Weaponizing ChatGPT?  National Security and the Perils of AI-Generated Texts in Democratic Societies". In this case "weaponising" is not a metaphor, or hyperbole, it really is about using AI to wage war. Greetings from the Australian National University, where a group of defence and AI experts from around the world are meeting, sponsored by the Australian Department of Defence. . This is the sort of seminar where not only have the speakers just published a new books, but so have half the audience. It is a little intimidating.

Professor Sarah Kreps, Cornell University, explained she was in the US Air Force engineering, working on the predator UAV, and AI was a short step from there. She suggested AI started in the civilian sector, and will then be adopted by the military. I am not so sure that is the case. What became web search engines, came out of research sponsored by US DoD. Some of the AI research is similarly sponsored. 

From the Professor's description, the US approach seems to be limited to what the threat might be from an adversary's use of AI. What I suggest western military's need to do is consider how they will use AI. As an example, if AI is being used defensively to create plausible fake news to undermine your nation, how can it be use to create instant factual responses, or offensively to create a largely factual narrative to undermine the enemy. 

Professor Kreps characterized western countries as an open system which could be exploited by misinformation, and AI can be used to enhance this. The result would be customized fake news to appeal to specific groups. 

It would be interesting to see what the ADF's Information Warfare Division is doing with generative AI. Just as Australia's military cyber-security experts have had an increasing role protecting government and civilian systems, with its name changed from Defence Signals Directorate, to Australian Signals Directorate. Is there a similar role for IWD?

Professor Kreps suggested the vocabulary used could indicate when generative AI is used. I suggest that can't be relied on. Professional speechwriters know to use the language and cadence of their customers. It will not be difficult for AI to write using the language of a particular individual, or group.

This would appear to be an area where DARPA, its UK & US equivalents, could provide funding for universities. This could produce free open access tools to counter misinformation.

Allow Students to use AI Generated Text in an Assignment Structured like a Systematic Review?

Does anyone else find it ironic that universities are using AI to make sure the students don't? ;-) More seriously, one of my students asked if they could use ChatGPT to write a report on their work experience. I checked the institutional rules, and found I had discretion as to what to do. I said "no", on the basis they would not be the author of the work, just an editor of it. But then their supervisor gave me a call to say they had suggested ChatGPT. This puts it in a new light, if this is an accepted, and encouraged, work practice.  So what I am now thinking is have the student prepare a report much like one used for a Systematic Review. 

The student framed their request in terms of using ChatGPT as a grammar checker. The problem is that ChatGPT does much more than simply correct grammar, it selects facts and concepts, drawn from a large collection of work from numerous authors, not always correct, or attributed. 

Universities provide advice and assistance with writing. Professor Inger Mewburn at ANU (the Thesis Whisperer), recommends Grammarly, and the free alternative Typely. I used Grammarly as a graduate student, and found it very useful (English is my first, and only, language, but I only barely passed the subject at school).

My experiences in using Chat GPT, and its predecessor GPT3, and other AI, have been mixed. Recently I reviewed a paper generated by Chat GPT. I gave the paper one out of five, and suggested the name of the author should be "Anonymous" with the person who submitted it listed as an editor, not author. But not everyone agreed, with an average review of 2.6 out of 5.

Using an approach similar to a systematic review, the student would set out what they are attempting to accomplish, what queries they tried, what the results they got were, how they selected the most appropriate result, what manual changes they made to the automated result, a critique of the result, and recommendations for improvements to the process. The idea would be the student would demonstrate skill in using a tool to produce a result, and value add to the automated output.

Paper Written by ChatGPT Get 2.6 out of 5 from Reviewers

Roger Clarke recently referred me a paper for review, knowing my interest in military matters, and AI. Apart from the topic, and how it was generated, the paper was also of interest as it was submitted to a public review forum, Qeios.

The paper was bland, much like other AI generated text. It was not really publishable as an academic work, as it didn't have anything new to say. But it was very much like many internal documents I had read, written by committee at the Australian Department of Defence. 

The other problem with the document was attribution. I suggested the author's name be changed to "Anonymous", as the content comes from a large corpus of online work by many authors. The person listed as author I suggested should be acknowledged as an editor. This would be a way, I suggest to acknowledge the contribute on people who generate such work.

How to change university assessment to take into account ChatGPT

I asked ChatGPT "How to change university assessment to take into account ChatGPT?". Here is the answer:

"It is important to note that the process of changing university assessments is complex and typically requires collaboration and approval from various stakeholders, such as faculty members, administrators, and governing bodies. Additionally, any changes to assessment methods should be made in a way that ensures the validity and reliability of the assessment.

That being said, if you are interested in exploring the possibility of incorporating ChatGPT into university assessments, here are some steps you could consider:

1. Identify the specific assessments where ChatGPT could be a useful tool. For example, it could be used for essay writing assignments, multiple-choice questions, or short answer questions.

2. Determine how ChatGPT would be integrated into the assessment process. For example, would it be used to provide feedback to students on their writing assignments, or would it be used to score answers to multiple-choice questions?

3. Establish guidelines and criteria for how ChatGPT will be used. For example, will it be used as a primary grading tool, or as a tool to assist faculty in grading? What threshold will be used for accepting ChatGPT-generated responses?

4. Consider the potential challenges of using ChatGPT in assessments, such as concerns about bias, accuracy, and reliability. It may be necessary to conduct a pilot study to assess these concerns.

5. Seek input and feedback from faculty members, students, and other relevant stakeholders before implementing any changes to university assessments.

Ultimately, any changes to university assessments should be made in a thoughtful and deliberate manner, with a focus on improving the validity and reliability of the assessment process, as well as enhancing student learning outcomes."