Author: GenAI:N3

Their Professors Caught Them Cheating. They Used A.I. to Apologize.

GenAI:N3
A distressed university student in a dimly lit room is staring intently at a laptop screen, which displays an AI chat interface generating a formal apology letter to their professor for a late submission. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
The irony of a digital dilemma: Students caught using AI to cheat are now turning to the same technology to craft their apologies. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

The New York Times

Summary

At the University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign, over 100 students in an introductory data science course were caught using artificial intelligence both to cheat on attendance and to generate apology emails after being discovered. Professors Karle Flanagan and Wade Fagen-Ulmschneider identified the misuse through digital tracking tools and later used the incident to discuss academic integrity with their class. The identical AI-written apologies became a viral example of AI misuse in education. While the university confirmed no disciplinary action would be taken, the case underscores the lack of clear institutional policy on AI use and the growing tension between student temptation and ethical academic practice.

Key Points

  • Over 100 Illinois students used AI to fake attendance and write identical apologies.
  • Professors exposed the incident publicly to promote lessons on academic integrity.
  • No formal sanctions were applied as the syllabus lacked explicit AI-use rules.
  • The case reflects universities’ struggle to define ethical AI boundaries.
  • Highlights the normalisation and risks of generative AI in student behaviour.

Keywords

, , , , , , , , ,

URL

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/us/university-illinois-students-cheating-ai.html

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

Why Even Basic A.I. Use Is So Bad for Students

GenAI:N3
ALT Text: A distressed student sits at a desk with their head in their hands, surrounded by laptops displaying AI interfaces. Labeled "INTELLECTUAL STAGNATION." Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
The weight of intellectual stagnation: How reliance on AI can hinder genuine learning and critical thinking in students. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

The New York Times

Summary

Anastasia Berg, a philosophy professor at the University of California, Irvine, contends that even minimal reliance on AI tools threatens students’ cognitive development and linguistic competence. Drawing on her experience of widespread AI use in a moral philosophy course, Berg argues that generative AI erodes the foundational processes of reading, reasoning, and self-expression that underpin higher learning and democratic citizenship. While past technologies reshaped cognition, she claims AI uniquely undermines the human capacity for thought itself by outsourcing linguistic effort. Berg calls for renewed emphasis on tech-free learning environments to protect students’ intellectual autonomy and critical literacy.

Key Points

  • Over half of Berg’s students used AI to complete philosophy exams.
  • AI shortcuts inhibit linguistic and conceptual growth central to thinking.
  • Even “harmless” uses, like summarising, weaken cognitive engagement.
  • Cognitive decline could threaten democratic participation and self-rule.
  • Universities should create tech-free spaces to rebuild reading and writing skills.

Keywords

, , , , , , , , ,

URL

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/opinion/ai-students-thinking-school-reading.html

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

Is Increasing Use of AI Damaging Students’ Learning Ability?

GenAI:N3
A split image contrasting two groups of students in a classroom. On the left, a blue-lit side represents "COGNITIVE DECAY" with students passively looking at laptops receiving "EASY ANSWERS." On the right, an orange-lit side represents "CRITICAL THINKING" and "CREATIVITY" with students actively collaborating and working. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
A critical question posed: Does the growing reliance on AI lead to cognitive decay, or can it be harnessed to foster critical thinking and creativity in students? Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Radio New Zealand (RNZ) – Nine to Noon

Summary

University of Auckland professor Alex Sims examines whether the growing integration of artificial intelligence in classrooms and lecture halls enhances or impedes student learning. Drawing on findings from an MIT neuroscience study and an Oxford University report, Sims highlights both the cognitive effects of AI use and students’ own accounts of its impact on motivation and understanding. The research suggests that while AI tools can aid efficiency, overreliance may disrupt the brain processes central to deep learning and independent reasoning. The discussion raises questions about how to balance technological innovation with the preservation of critical thinking and sustained attention.

Key Points

  • AI use in education is expanding rapidly across levels and disciplines.
  • MIT research explores how AI affects neural activity linked to learning.
  • Oxford report includes students’ perceptions of AI’s influence on study habits.
  • Benefits include efficiency; risks include reduced cognitive engagement.
  • Experts urge educators to maintain a balance between AI support and active learning.

Keywords

, , , , , , , , ,

URL

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2019010577/is-increasing-use-of-ai-damaging-students-learning-ability

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

English Professors Take Individual Approaches to Deterring AI Use

GenAI:N3
A triptych showing three different English professors employing distinct methods to deter AI use. The first panel shows a professor lecturing on critical thinking. The second shows a professor providing personalized feedback on a digital screen. The third shows a professor leading a discussion with creative prompts. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
Diverse strategies in action: English professors are developing unique and personalised methods to encourage original thought and deter the misuse of AI in their classrooms. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Yale Daily News

Summary

Without a unified departmental policy, Yale University’s English professors are independently addressing the challenge of generative AI in student writing. While all interviewed faculty agree that AI undermines critical thinking and originality, their responses vary from outright bans to guided experimentation. Professors Stefanie Markovits and David Bromwich warn that AI shortcuts obstruct the process of learning to think and write independently, while Rasheed Tazudeen enforces a no-tech classroom to preserve student engagement. Playwriting professor Deborah Margolin insists that AI cannot replicate authentic human voice and creativity. Across approaches, faculty emphasise trust, creativity, and the irreplaceable role of struggle in developing genuine thought.

Key Points

  • Yale English Department lacks a central AI policy, favouring academic freedom.
  • Faculty agree AI use hinders original thinking and creative voice.
  • Some, like Tazudeen, impose no-tech classrooms to deter reliance on AI.
  • Others allow limited exploration under clear guidelines and reflection.
  • Consensus: authentic learning requires human engagement and intellectual struggle.

Keywords

, , , , , , , , ,

URL

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2025/10/29/english-professors-take-individual-approaches-to-deterring-ai-use/

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News

The Case Against AI Disclosure Statements

GenAI:N3
A large tablet displaying an "AI Disclosure Statement" document with a prominent red "X" over it sits on a wooden desk in a courtroom setting. A gavel lies next to the tablet, and a judge's bench with scales of justice is visible in the background. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.
Challenging transparency: A visual argument against mandatory AI disclosure statements, set against the backdrop of legal scrutiny. Image (and typos) generated by Nano Banana.

Source

Inside Higher Ed

Summary

Julie McCown, an associate professor of English at Southern Utah University, argues that mandatory AI disclosure statements in higher education are counterproductive. Initially designed to promote transparency and responsible use, these statements have instead reinforced a culture of guilt, distrust, and surveillance. McCown contends that disclosure requirements stigmatise ethical AI use and inhibit open dialogue between students and educators. Rather than policing AI use, she advocates normalising it within learning environments, rethinking assessment design, and fostering trust. Transparency, she suggests, emerges from safety and shared experimentation, not coercion.

Key Points

  • Mandatory AI disclosure creates a culture of confession and distrust.
  • Research shows disclosure reduces perceived trustworthiness regardless of context.
  • Anti-AI bias drives use underground and suppresses AI literacy.
  • Assignments should focus on quality and integrity of writing, not AI detection.
  • Normalising AI through reflective practice and open discussion builds genuine transparency.

Keywords

, , , , , , , , ,

URL

https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2025/10/28/case-against-ai-disclosure-statements-opinion

Summary generated by ChatGPT 5

GenAI News