What do you observe when mixing an assignment of school elite B, a curious MBA student and a chatbot who never sleeps?
Apparently – an A +.
Yugantar Gupta, a student at IIM Ahmedabad, just opened a Hornet nest on Linkedin by admitting that he used Chatgpt to write a report that marked the best grades in one of the most difficult institutions in India. But before rolling your eyes, it was not your typical IA shortcut.
Assigned a project on cosmetics, Gupta did not turn to Google. He went to the shopping center. From the lifestyle to Forest Essentials, he dragged the buyers, listened to purchasing behaviors, sellers dotted with false friends and all the details of the voice. Back on the campus, he nourished this raw data in the Chatppt and shaped the production of AI in a tight and original report – which amazed his teachers.
“In a world where the chatgpt can do better secondary research than you, your only advantage is what it cannot access-lived experience,” he wrote. His position has become viral.
Applause followed. “AI can accelerate, but human curiosity and initiative are irreplaceable,” said a user. But the same goes for hindsight. “Have you missed the joy of writing, but you wrote this post?” joked another. A deeper criticism came from educators: “How do the teachers equally evaluately work when AI is authorized but invisible?”
GUPTA said that detection tools like Turnitin can easily report non -original content generated by AI. What he submitted, he insisted, was built on research on man. The AI has not replaced the work – it refined it.
The biggest question is now looming from each classroom and corporate corridor: if tools like chatgpt are there to stay, what matters as a real effort? True creativity? Real value?
