布朗大学经济学教授罗伯托·塞拉诺发现，其高级课程ECON 1170的三月期中考试中，至少50名学生使用人工智能作弊，成为常春藤盟校最大作弊丑闻。校方高层对此反应冷淡，校长和院长均未回应，教授担忧学术诚信面临严重威胁。

布朗大学经济学教授罗伯托·塞拉诺发现，在他教授的高级本科课程ECON 1170中，至少有50名学生在3月的期中考试中作弊，这是布朗大学乃至整个常春藤联盟已知的最大规模作弊丑闻。塞拉诺教授向校方高层报告此事后，校长和院长最初反应冷淡，直到他将案件提交学术准则委员会，才收到一份承认此事是“警钟”的便条。塞拉诺认为这远远不够，强调学术诚信值得捍卫，教师不能孤军奋战，需要公开承认问题的严重性并展开广泛辩论。

塞拉诺教授是博弈论应用于市场分析的领军人物，拥有哈佛大学博士学位，在布朗大学任教34年。他17岁时因视网膜营养不良完全失明，但凭借出色的学术成绩进入哈佛，并将失明视为生活中的一种限制来优化应对。他通常有助教协助课堂板书和幻灯片，其他工作均独立完成。

本学期，塞拉诺决定采用开卷但闭卷的带回家考试形式，这种考试允许学生有无限时间完成，难度更高。期中考试平均分高达96分（满分100分），40名学生获得满分。批改试卷的人发现异常，一些答案包含与ChatGPT运行结果一致的段落。塞拉诺没有取消期中成绩，但警告期末考试将在教室进行，且如果成绩分布不相似，只计算期末成绩。结果期末平均分降至48分，89名参加期中考试的学生中只有59人参加期末，27名未参加的学生中有22人在期中获得满分。塞拉诺认为作弊证据确凿，决定下学年取消带回家考试。

布朗大学去年12月发生枪击事件，一名前博士生开枪造成两人死亡、九人受伤。塞拉诺的一名学生埃拉·库克在枪击案中遇难，她曾与塞拉诺会面讨论课程和职业规划。塞拉诺因此受到很大影响，决定本学期采用带回家考试以减轻学生压力。但他现在担心部分学生作弊，以及大学可能因富裕家庭的捐赠而偏袒学生。

人工智能正在改变美国精英大学的传统，普林斯顿大学已决定结束133年来的荣誉守则，改为由教授监考。塞拉诺认为，人工智能让学生更有作弊动机，这些案例不应被掩盖，而应引发深入讨论，否则学术界的信誉将不复存在。

根据评论内容，主要观点和论据如下：

1. 考试设计问题（认可度较高） - 教授允许开卷/带回家的考试形式是作弊的根源。评论1指出：“the professor has all the power in the classroom. If you don't want cheating, define better conditions for the exam. You allowed a take-home exam which means students are able to use any and all resources.” - 评论5强调：“The problem isn't AI, it's that you gave a take-home exam expected no one to cheat.” - 评论11批评“take-home, closed-book”是矛盾概念：“What an oxymoron. I agree with the others here that AI isn't the problem.”

2. 教育体系与竞争压力（认可度较高） - 评论4指出竞争压力迫使作弊：“When you're a student in a competitive program at a top university, graded on a curve, and you know your fellow classmates are cheating with AI, you have little choice but to do the same.” - 评论20认为学生将大学视为“tick a box”：“The problem is that kids, even (or especially?) in the elite schools, are treating college as a box to tick.” - 评论22强调学生优化成绩而非学习：“Our students are somewhat motivated by an abstract desire to learn, but are much more motivated by grades.”

3. 应对措施（认可度中等） - 评论6建议回归传统考试：“Administration needs to eschew 'technology' and demand analog solutions: hand written exams in proctored rooms, no devices out in the classroom, no take home work, etc.” - 评论12主张线下手写考试：“In the AI era, tests are going to have to be in person and hand written.” - 评论26提出三种策略：惩罚、预防、拥抱：“Punish it... Prevent it... Embrace it.”

4. 对AI作弊的反思（认可度中等） - 评论2认为需改变课程设计：“They're going to have change everything so use of an AI assistant doesn't matter because once they graduate they're just going to continue using it anyway.” - 评论10从博弈论角度分析：“He should have realized that, in a situation where all competitors are (possibly) using LLMs, the game theoretic optimal choice is to use LLMs.” - 评论17呼吁适应新环境：“It's time to move on to the new game. When the landscape shifts beneath you, its very low probability that the existing structures on the landscape are a good fit.”

5. 对教授行为的质疑（认可度较低） - 评论15怀疑教授判断：“I don't believe he's 100% correct on each incident of fraud and he's going to ruin students lives because of it.” - 评论19指出首次开卷考试可能设计不当：“This guy may have accidentally made his exam absolutely sadistic.”

6. 对教育本质的讨论（认可度较低） - 评论25质疑评分意义：“As a university professor, I honestly don't understand the point of grading. Who will look at and care about grades?” - 评论27讽刺学生动机：“Nobody would hire a chess coach and then use Stockfish to cheat on the problems. Whatever the students are paying for here, it certainly isn't an education.”

总结：评论普遍认为作弊根源在于考试设计不当和竞争压力，而非AI本身。多数观点支持回归线下手写考试或调整评估方式，同时批评教育体系过度强调成绩而非学习。少数评论质疑教授处理方式或呼吁适应AI时代。