A teacher caught students using ChatGPT on their first assignment to introduce themselves. Her post about it started a debate.

When Fritts, an assistant professor of philosophy at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, took her concern to X, formerly Twitter, in a tweet that has now garnered 3.5 million views, some replies argued that students would obviously combat “busywork” assignments with similarly low-effort AI-generated answers.

However, Fritts said that the assignment was not only to help students get acquainted with using the online Blackboard discussion board feature, but she was also “genuinely curious” about the introductory question.

“A lot of students who take philosophy classes, especially if they’re not majors, don’t really know what philosophy is,” she said. “So I like to get an idea of what their expectations are so I can know how to respond to them.”

The AI-written responses, however, did not reflect what the students, as individuals, were expecting from the course but rather a regurgitated description of what a technology ethics class is, which clued Fritts in that they were generated by ChatGPT or a similar chatbot.

“When you’re a professor, and you’ve read dozens and dozens of AI essays, you can just tell,” she said.

The calculator argument — why ChatGPT is not just another problem-solving tool

While a common defense permeating Fritts’ replies likened ChatGPT for writing to a calculator for math problems, she said that viewing LLMs as just another problem-solving tool is a “mistaken” comparison, especially in the context of humanities.

Calculators reduce the time needed to solve mechanical operations that students are already taught to produce a singular correct solution. But Fritts said that the aim of humanities education is not to create a product but to “shape people” by “giving them the ability to think about things that they wouldn’t naturally be prompted to think about.”

“The goal is to create liberated minds — liberated people — and offloading the thinking onto a machine, by definition, doesn’t achieve that,” she said.

Lasting impacts on students

Beyond cheating on papers, Fritts said that students have, in general, become compromised in their thinking ability — and they’ve noticed.

“They’re like, ‘When I was young, I used to love to read, and now I can’t. I can’t even get through the chapter of a book,'” she said. “‘My attention span is so bad, and I know it’s from looking at my phone, always having YouTube or TikTok on.’ And they’re sad about it.”

Fritts said that technology addiction has affected students’ general agency when interacting with information. She cited a 2015 paper by Professor Charles Harvey, chair of the Department of Philosophy and Religion at the University of Central Arkansas, which examines the effects that interactions with technology could have had on human agency and concentration.

Harvey wrote that two different eye-tracking experiments indicated that the vast majority of people skim online text quickly, “skipping down the page” rather than reading line by line. Deep reading of paper texts is being snipped into “even smaller, disconnected” thoughts.

“The new generations will not be experiencing this technology for the first time. They’ll have grown up with it,” Fritts said. “I think we can expect a lot of changes in the really foundational aspects of human agency, and I’m not convinced those changes are going to be good.”

Teachers are getting tired

Fritts acknowledges that educators have some obligation to teach students how to use AI in a productive and edifying way. However, she said that placing the burden of fixing the cheating trend on scholars teaching AI literacy to students is “naive to the point of unbelievability.”

“Let’s not deceive ourselves that students are using AI because they’re just so siked about the new tech, and they’re not sure of what the right way to use it in the classroom,” Fritts said.

“And I’m not trying to slam them,” she added. “All of us are inclined to take measures to make things easier for us.”

But Fritts also feels just as “pessimistic” about the alternative solution — educators and institutions forming a “united front” in keeping AI out of the classroom.

“Which isn’t going to happen because so many educators are now fueled by sentiments from university administration,” Fritts said. “They’re being encouraged to incorporate this into the curriculum.”

At least 22 state departments of education have released official guidelines for AI use in schools, The Information recently reported. A 2024 survey by EdWeek Research Center found that 56% of over 900 educators anticipated AI use to rise. And some are excited for it.

Curby Alexander, an associate education professor at Texas Christian University, previously told BI that he uses AI to help brainstorm ideas and develop case studies “without taking up a lot of class time.”

ASU’s Anna Cunningham, a Dean’s Fellow, and Joel Nishimura, an associate professor in the Mathematical and Natural Sciences department, wrote an op-ed encouraging having students teach ChatGPT agents with programmed misunderstandings.

“With this, we are on the cusp of being able to give all students as many opportunities as they want to learn by teaching,” they wrote.

OpenAI even partnered with Arizona State University to offer students and faculty full access to ChatGPT Enterprise for tutoring, coursework, research, and more.

However, many educators remain skeptical. Some professors have even reverted back to pen and paper to combat ChatGPT usage, but Fritts said many are tired of trying to fight the seemingly inevitable. And students are left in the middle of education and AI’s love-hate relationship.

“I think it, understandably, creates a lot of confusion and makes them feel like the professors who are saying ‘Absolutely not’ are maybe philistines or behind the times or unnecessarily strict,” Fritts said.

Fritts is not the only professor voicing concerns about AI use among students. In a Reddit thread titled “ChatGPT: It’s getting worse,” several users who identified as professors lamented increased AI usage in classrooms, especially in online courses. One commented, “This is one reason I’m genuinely considering leaving academia.”

A professor in another post that received over 600 upvotes said that ChatGPT was “ruining” their love of teaching. “The students are no longer interpreting a text, they’re just giving me this automated verbiage,” they wrote. “Grading it as if they wrote it makes me feel complicit. I’m honestly despairing.”