[Yawrehto]

By the way, of students who have heard of ChatGPT, 32 percent have used it.

But more importantly, this feels like a broad thing. There's a huge difference between 'hey I have to write a paper on the Roman economy, what are some sources about that' and 'write a paper about the Roman economy'. Similarly a difference between 'crap, what's the formula for the volume of a sphere' and 'calculate the volume of a sphere with diameter 12 feet'. Personally I would rank the 'cheatiness', from less to more, as sources < formula < writing a paper/calculating.

This whole study feels like it hinges on what students consider 'help', since it was self-reported. If you try to get it to help but it only turned up sources you knew, does that count as helping? If you tried but it spat out an awful paper and you got a really bad score, does that count as helping? If you wound up having to spend more time correcting its output than you would've just writing the paper, does that count as helping? It's just so variable depending on individual standards the study feels kind of worthless as an actual indicator of stuff.