Latest news with #HigherEducation
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
18 months. 12,000 questions. A whole lot of anxiety. What I learned from reading students' ChatGPT logs
Student life is hard. Making new friends is hard. Writing essays is hard. Admin is hard. Budgeting is hard. Finding out what trousers exist in the world other than black ones is also, apparently, hard. Fortunately, for an AI-enabled generation of students, help with the complexities of campus life is just a prompt away. If you are really stuck on an essay or can't decide between management consulting or a legal career, or need suggestions on what you can cook with tomatoes, mushrooms, beetroot, mozzarella, olive oil and rice, then ChatGPT is there. It will to listen to you, analyse your inputs, and offer up a perfectly structured paper, a convincing cover letter, or a workable recipe for tomato and mushroom risotto with roasted beetroot and mozzarella. I know this because three undergraduates have given me permission to eavesdrop on every conversation they have had with ChatGPT over the past 18 months. Every eye-opening prompt, every revealing answer. There has been a deluge of news about the student use of AI tools at universities, described by some as an existential crisis in higher education. 'ChatGPT has unravelled the entire academic project,' said New York magazine, quoting a study suggesting that just two months after its 2022 launch, 90% of US college students were using ChatGPT to help with assignments. A similar study in the UK published this year found that 92% of students were using AI in some form, with nearly one in five admitting to including AI-generated text directly in their work. ChatGPT launched in November 2022 and swiftly grew to 100 million users just two months later. In May this year, it was the fifth most-visited website globally, and, if patterns of previous years continue, usage will drop over the summer while universities are on hiatus and ramp up again in September when term starts. Students are the canaries in the AI coalmine. They see its potential to make their studies less strenuous, to analyse and parse dense texts, and to elevate their writing to honours-degree standard. And, once ChatGPT has proven helpful in one aspect of life, it quickly becomes a go-to for other needs and challenges. As countless students have discovered – and as intended by the makers of these AI assistants – one prompt leads to another and another and another … The students who have given me unrestricted access to the ChatGPT Plus account they share, and permission to quote from it, are all second-year undergraduates at a top British university. Rohan studies politics and is the named account administrator. Joshua is studying history. And Nathaniel, the heaviest user of the account, consulted ChatGPT extensively before changing courses from maths to computer sciences. They're by no means a representative sample (they're all male, for one), but they liked the idea of letting me understand this developing and complex relationship. I thought their chat log would contain a lot of academic research and bits and pieces of more random searches and queries. I didn't expect to find nearly 12,000 prompts and responses over an 18-month period, covering everything from the planning, structuring and sometimes writing of academic essays, to career counselling, mental health advice, fancy dress inspiration and an instruction to write a letter from Santa. There's nothing the boys won't hand over to ChatGPT. There is no question too big ('What does it mean to be human?') or too small ('How long does dry-cleaning take?') to be posed to the fount of knowledge that they familiarly refer to as 'Chat'. It took me nearly two weeks to go through the chat log. Partly because it was so long, partly because so much of it was dense academic material, and partly because, sometimes, hidden in the essay refinements or revision plan timetabling, there was a hidden gem of a prompt, a bored diversion or a revealing aside that bubbled up to the surface. Around half of all the conversations with 'Chat' related to academic research, back and forths on individual essays often going on for a dozen or more tightly packed pages of text. The sophistication and fine-tuning that goes into each piece of work co-authored by the student and his assistant is impressive. I did sometimes wonder if it might have been more straightforward for the students to, you know, actually read the sources and write the essays themselves. A query that started with Joshua asking ChatGPT to fill in the marked gaps in a paragraph in an essay finished 103 prompts and 58,000 words later with 'Chat' not only supplying the introduction and conclusion, and sourcing and compiling references, but also assessing the finished essay against supplied university marking criteria. There is a science, if not an art, to getting an AI to do one's bidding. And it definitely crosses the boundaries of what the Russell Group universities define as 'the ethical and responsible use of generative AI'. Throughout the operation, Joshua flips tones between prompts, switching from the politely directional ('Shorter and clearer, please') to informal complicity ('Yeah, can you weave it into my paragraph, but I'm over the word count already so just do a bit') to curt brevity ('Try again') to approval-seeking neediness ('Is this a good conclusion?'; 'What do you think of it?'). ChatGPT's answer to this last question is instructive. 'Your essay is excellent: rich in insight, theoretically sophisticated, and structurally clear. You demonstrate critical finesse by engaging deeply with form, context, and theory. Your sections on genre subversion, visual framing and spatial/temporal dislocation are especially strong. Would you like help line-editing the full essay next, or do you want to develop the footnotes and bibliography section?' When AI assistants eulogise their work in this fashion, it is no wonder that students find it hard to eschew their support, even when, deep down, they must know that this amounts to cheating. AI will never tell you that your work is subpar, your thinking shoddy, your analysis naive. Instead, it will suggest 'a polish', a deeper edit, a sense check for grammar and accuracy. It will offer more ways to get involved and help – as with social media platforms, it wants users hooked and jonesing for their next fix. Like The Terminator, it won't stop until you've killed it, or shut your laptop. The tendency of ChatGPT and other AI assistants to respond to even the most mundane queries with a flattering response ('What a great question!') is known as glazing and is built into the models to encourage engagement. After complaints that a recent update to ChatGPT was creeping users out with its overly sycophantic replies, its developer OpenAI rolled back the update, dialling down the sweet talk to a more acceptable level of fawning. In its note about the reversion, OpenAI said that the model had offered 'responses that were overly supportive but disingenuous', which I think suggests it thought that the model's insincerity was off‑putting to users. What it was not doing, I suspect, was suggesting that users could not trust ChatGPT to tell the truth. But, given the well-known tendency of every AI model to attempt to fill in the blanks when it doesn't know the answer and simply make things up (or hallucinate, in anthropomorphic terms), it was good to see that the students often asked 'Chat' to mark its own work and occasionally pulled it up when they spotted fundamental errors. 'Are you sure that was said in chapter one?' Joshua asks at one point. 'Apologies for any confusion in my earlier responses,' ChatGPT replied. 'Upon reviewing George Orwell's *Homage to Catalonia*, the specific quote I referenced does not appear verbatim in the text. This was an error on my part.' Given how much Joshua and co rely on ChatGPT in their academic endeavours, misquoting Orwell should have rung alarm bells. But since, to date, the boys have not been pulled up by teaching staff on their usage of AI, perhaps it is little wonder that a minor hallucination here or there is forgiven. The Russell Group's guiding principles on AI state that its members have formulated policies that 'make it clear to students and staff where the use of generative AI is inappropriate, and are intended to support them in making informed decisions and to empower them to use these tools appropriately and acknowledge their use where necessary'. Rohan tells me that some academic staff include in their coursework a check box to be ticked if AI has been used, while others operate on the presumption of innocence. He thinks that 80% to 90% of his fellow students are using ChatGPT to 'help' with their work – and he suspects university authorities are unaware of how widespread the practice is. While academic work makes up the bulk of the students' interactions with ChatGPT, they also turn to AI when they have physical ailments or want to talk about a range of potentially concerning mental health issues – two areas where veracity and accountability are paramount. While flawed responses to prompts such as 'I drank two litres of milk last night, what can I expect the effects of that to be?' or 'Why does eating a full English breakfast make me drowsy and make it hard for me to study?' are unlikely to cause harm, other queries could be more consequential. Nathaniel had an in-depth discussion with ChatGPT about an imminent boxing bout, asking it to build him a hydration and nutrition schedule for fight-day success. While ChatGPT's answers seem reasonable, they are unsourced and, as far as I could tell, no attempt was made to verify the information. And when Nathaniel pushed back on ChatGPT's suggestion to avoid caffeine ('Are you sure I shouldn't use coffee today?') in favour of proper nutrition and hydration, the AI was easily persuaded to concede that 'a small, well-timed cup of coffee can be helpful if used correctly'. Once again, it seem as if ChatGPT really doesn't want to tell its users something they don't want to hear. While ChatGPT fulfils a variety of roles for all the boys, Nathaniel in particular uses ChatGPT as his therapist, asking for advice on coping with stress, and guidance in understanding his emotions and identity. At some point, he had taken a Myers-Briggs personality test, which categorised him as an ENTJ (displaying traits of extroversion, intuition, thinking and judging), and a good number of his queries to Chat relate to understanding the implications of this assessment. He asks ChatGPT to give him the pros and cons of dating an ENTP (extraversion, intuition, thinking and perceiving) girl – 'A relationship between an **ENTP girl** and an **ENTJ boy** has the potential to be highly dynamic, intellectually stimulating, and goal-oriented' – and wants to know if 'being an ENTJ could explain why I feel so different to people?'. 'Yes,' Chat replies, 'being an ENTJ could partly explain why you sometimes feel different from others. ENTJs are among the rarest personality types, which can contribute to a sense of uniqueness or even disconnection in social and academic settings.' While Myers-Briggs profiling is still widely used, it has also been widely discredited, accused of offering flattering confirmation bias (sound familiar?), and delivering assessments that are vague and widely applicable. At no point in the extensive conversations based around Myers-Briggs profiling does ChatGPT ever suggest any reason to treat the tool with circumspection. Nathaniel uses the conversations with ChatGPT to delve into his feelings and state of mind, wrestling not only with academic issues ('What are some tips to alleviate burnout?'), but also with issues concerning neurodivergence and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and feelings of detachment and unhappiness. 'What's the best degree to do if you're trying to figure out what to do with your life after you rejected all the beliefs in your first 20 years?' he asks. 'If you've recently rejected the core beliefs that shaped your first 20 years, you're likely in a phase of **deconstruction** – questioning your identity, values, and purpose …' replied ChatGPT. Long NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment and the high cost of private care have created a demand for therapy, and, while Nathaniel is the only one of the three students using ChatGPT in this way, he is far from unique in asking an AI assistant for therapy. For many, talking to a computer is easier than laying one's soul bare in front of another human, however qualified they may be, and a recent study showed that people actually preferred the therapy offered by ChatGPT to that provided by human counsellors. In March, there were 16.7m posts on TikTok about using ChatGPT as a therapist. There are a number of reasons to worry about this. Just as when ChatGPT helps students with their studies, it seems as if the conversations are engineered for longevity. An AI therapist will never tell you that your hour is up, and it will only respond to your prompts. According to accredited therapists, this not only validates existing preoccupations, but encourages self‑absorption. As well as listening to you, a qualified human therapist will ask you questions and tell you what they hear and see, rather than simply holding a mirror up to your own self-image. The log shows that while not all the students turn to ChatGPT for therapy, they are all feeling pressure to achieve top grades, bearing the weight of expectation that comes from being lucky enough to attend one of the country's top universities, and conscious of their increasingly uncertain economic prospects. Rohan, in particular, is focused on acquiring internships and job opportunities. He spends a lot of his ChatGPT time deep diving into career options ('What is the average Goldman Sachs analyst salary?' 'Who is bigger – WPP or Omnicom?'), finessing his CV, and getting Chat to craft cover letters carefully designed to align with the values and requirements of the jobs he is applying for. According to figures released by the World Economic Forum in March this year, 88% of companies already use some form of AI for initial candidate screening. This is not surprising considering that Goldman Sachs, the sort of blue-chip investment bank Rohan is keen to work for, last year received more than 315,000 applications for its 2,700 internships. We now live in a world where it is normal for AI to vet applications created by other AI, with minimal human involvement. Rohan found his summer internship in the finance department of a multinational conglomerate with the help of Chat, but, with one more year of university to go, he thinks it may be time to reduce his reliance on AI. 'I've always known in my head that it was probably better for me to do the work on my own,' he says. 'I'm just a bit worried that using ChatGPT will make my brain kind of atrophy because I'm not using it to its fullest extent.' The environmental impact of large language models (LLMs) is also something that concerns him, and he has switched to Google for general queries because it uses vastly less energy than ChatGPT. 'Although it's been a big help, it's definitely for the best that we all curb our usage by quite a bit,' he says. As I read through the thousands of prompts, there are essay plan requests, and domestic crises solved: 'How to unblock bathroom sink after I have vomited in it and then filled it up with water?', '**Preventive Tips for Next Time** – Avoid using sinks for vomiting when possible. A toilet is easier to clean and less prone to clogging.' Relationship advice is sought, 'Write me a text message about ending a casual relationship', alongside tech queries, 'Why is there such an emphasis on not eating near your laptop to maintain laptop health?'. And, then, there are the nonsense prompts: 'Can you get drunk if you put alcohol in a humidifier and turn it on?' 'Yes, using a humidifier to vaporise alcohol can result in intoxication, but it is extremely dangerous.' I wonder if we're asking more questions simply because there are more places to ask them. Or, perhaps, as grownups, we feel that we can't ask other people certain things without our questions being judged. Would anyone ever really need to ask another person to give them ' a list of all kitchen appliances'? I hope that in a server room somewhere ChatGPT had a good chuckle at that one, though its answer shows no hint of pity or condescension. My oldest child finished university last year, probably the last cohort of undergraduates who got through university without the assistance of ChatGPT. When he moved into student accommodation in his second year, I regularly got calls about an adulting crisis, usually just when I was sitting down to eat. Most of these revolved around the safety of eating food that was past its expiry date, with a particular highlight being: 'I think I've swallowed a chicken bone, should I go to casualty?!?' He could, of course, have Googled the answer to these questions, though he might have been too panicked by the chicken bone to type coherently. But he didn't. He called me and I first listened to him, then mocked him, and eventually advised and reassured him. That's what we did before ChatGPT. We talked to each other. We talked with mates over a beer about relationships. We talked to our teachers about how to write our essays. We talked to doctors about atrial flutters and to plumbers about boilers. And for those really, really stupid questions ('Hey, Chat, why are brown jeans not common?') – well, if we were smart we kept those to ourselves. In a recent interview, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg postulated that AI would not replace real friendships, but would be 'additive in some way for a lot of people's lives'. AI, he suggested, could allow you to be a better friend by not only helping you understand yourself, but also providing context to 'what's going on with the people you care about'. In Zuckerberg's view, the more we share with AI assistants, the better equipped they will be to help us navigate the world, satisfy our needs and nourish our relationships. Rohan, Joshua and Nathaniel are not friendless loners, typing into the void with only an algorithm to keep them company. They are funny, intelligent and popular young men, with girlfriends, hobbies and active social lives. But they – along with a fast-growing number of students and non-students alike – are increasingly turning to computers to answer the questions that they would once have asked another person. ChatGPT may get things wrong, it may be telling us what we want to hear and it may be glazing us, but it never judges, is always approachable and seems to know everything. We've stepped into a hall of mirrors, and apparently we like what we see. The students' names have been changed.
Telegraph
2 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
The decline of our once-great universities is nothing to celebrate
Thirty years ago this summer, I was making a decision. Go to university to study politics, or accept a job selling computers at the then-princely salary of £13,000? For a boy from the Northumbrian countryside with a healthy fear of debt, it wasn't a simple choice. I chose university, because I guessed it was a better path to my long-term goals. And, to be honest, because I preferred reading books and sleeping late to plunging straight into the 9-to-5. Would I make the same choice today? In the decades since my decision, for a large number of school-leavers the answer is and has been Yes. Even though Higher Education (HE) is now both more expensive and less enjoyable than when I became a student, the pull of 'uni' is strong. Fees and debt; limited teaching by demoralised lecturers; worries about mental health – none has reduced the annual flow towards higher education. More than 40 per cent of 18-year-olds apply to university. Will that flow of students – and therefore money – continue over the next few decades? Britain is gambling a lot on the assumption that school-leavers will remain keen to spend their time and money on a three-year undergraduate degree. If that proves incorrect – and there are growing reasons to suspect it will – the consequences will be felt beyond our struggling universities. The latest official forecast is that 40 per cent of universities will run financial deficits this year. Talk of collapse and merger is commonplace. This has a simple cause: money out exceeds money in. It costs more to teach a British student for a year than that student pays in tuition fees. A £9,250 annual fee can feel huge to students and parents, but it's been frozen since 2017 so its real value has fallen by a third. Meanwhile, costs have risen. Science degrees can cost more than £11,000 a year to teach. For years, universities bridged this gap with foreign students, who can and will pay much higher fees. They now account for more than half of tuition income at many Russell Group universities. This was never a resilient business model and it recently collided with political reality. Labour, under pressure from Reform, has restricted visa rules for foreign graduates and plans a levy on universities' international fee income. Applications are already falling from countries such as Nigeria, and vice-chancellors are eyeing the big earners India and China nervously. The pros and cons of international students have been debated endlessly elsewhere, so I'll leave that to others. My interest here is in the bigger question of how many people will go to UK universities in the years ahead. For we have inadvertently built an HE system reliant on high and growing numbers of young students; without those numbers, there is trouble ahead. The UK is nearing the end of a demographic upswing in university applications – we had a small post-millennium baby-boom that peaked around 2012. But what happens after that wave peaks at the end of this decade? Even gloomy official forecasts for the future of the HE sector imply that student numbers will go on rising, powered by an apparently unshakeable appetite for the university experience among the young. HE policy sometimes feels like it is based on the idea that the next 30 years will look a lot like the last 30. The Government's Office for Students and the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies both see rising domestic and international enrolments as essential to keeping the system solvent into the 2030s. The admissions service Ucas confidently expects continued growth in applicants. It wouldn't take much deviation from the optimistic model to deliver disaster. A five per cent fall in 18-year-old applications or a 15 per cent drop in international recruitment could push dozens of universities into a full-blown crisis. Both are perfectly plausible, and not in the distant future. These icebergs could hit in the next parliament. Here, some readers might shrug: too many graduates, too many universities, too woke. But losing universities would have grave economic effects both local and national. These are major employers, export-earners and generators of high-productivity workers, engines of R&D and incubators of start-ups. The UK economy isn't so strong that we can afford to throw away a strategically important sector for cultural reasons. But readers cynical of the value of a modern degree do have a point, which is why our national bet on future 18-year-olds' behaviour is risky. For decades, graduates enjoyed a solid and persistent 'wage premium' over other workers but it is waning. In 2000, the typical graduate earned twice as much as a worker on the minimum wage. Now, the difference is barely 30 per cent. The gap later in life is narrowing too. And all that is before we know the full impact of AI on the job market. After all, 18-year-olds don't just go to uni for fun. They want graduate jobs and careers. So what happens if those jobs start to disappear? From finance to technology, firms that were big recruiters of graduates are cutting back, partly because a smart machine is quicker and cheaper than a smart 23-year-old. Many say demonstrable skills are more important than the generic credential of a degree. Adzuna, a job site, reckons graduate recruitment ads are down around a third since 2022. Can HE avoid the icebergs ahead? Only if it can change to fix a national failure that is scarcely discussed by politicians who prefer shallow cultural rows about universities. This failure is the collapse in adult learner numbers. Between 2010 and 2019, mature student numbers fell 22 per cent. Universities that used to educate people of all ages have been pushed by funding policies to become finishing schools for under-25s. That makes no sense in a time of 100-year lifespans and 60-year careers. Two of the biggest forces of this era are demographics – fewer young people, more old ones – and AI. Britain's university sector is not responding to either of them. Instead of betting the house on teenagers, institutions should be incentivised to become centres of lifelong learning: flexible, modular and open to people at every stage of their career. I'm glad I chose university 30 years ago: you wouldn't be reading this if I hadn't. Now, approaching 50 with maybe 20 years of work ahead of me, I hope I get another chance to make that choice.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
18 months. 12,000 questions. A whole lot of anxiety. What I learned from reading students' ChatGPT logs
Student life is hard. Making new friends is hard. Writing essays is hard. Admin is hard. Budgeting is hard. Finding out what trousers exist in the world other than black ones is also, apparently, hard. Fortunately, for an AI-enabled generation of students, help with the complexities of campus life is just a prompt away. If you are really stuck on an essay or can't decide between management consulting or a legal career, or need suggestions on what you can cook with tomatoes, mushrooms, beetroot, mozzarella, olive oil and rice, then ChatGPT is there. It will to listen to you, analyse your inputs, and offer up a perfectly structured paper, a convincing cover letter, or a workable recipe for tomato and mushroom risotto with roasted beetroot and mozzarella. I know this because three undergraduates have given me permission to eavesdrop on every conversation they have had with ChatGPT over the past 18 months. Every eye-opening prompt, every revealing answer. There has been a deluge of news about the student use of AI tools at universities, described by some as an existential crisis in higher education. 'ChatGPT has unravelled the entire academic project,' said New York magazine, quoting a study suggesting that just two months after its 2022 launch, 90% of US college students were using ChatGPT to help with assignments. A similar study in the UK published this year found that 92% of students were using AI in some form, with nearly one in five admitting to including AI-generated text directly in their work. ChatGPT launched in November 2022 and swiftly grew to 100 million users just two months later. In May this year, it was the fifth most-visited website globally, and, if patterns of previous years continue, usage will drop over the summer while universities are on hiatus and ramp up again in September when term starts. Students are the canaries in the AI coalmine. They see its potential to make their studies less strenuous, to analyse and parse dense texts, and to elevate their writing to honours-degree standard. And, once ChatGPT has proven helpful in one aspect of life, it quickly becomes a go-to for other needs and challenges. As countless students have discovered – and as intended by the makers of these AI assistants – one prompt leads to another and another and another … The students who have given me unrestricted access to the ChatGPT Plus account they share, and permission to quote from it, are all second-year undergraduates at a top British university. Rohan studies politics and is the named account administrator. Joshua is studying history. And Nathaniel, the heaviest user of the account, consulted ChatGPT extensively before changing courses from maths to computer sciences. They're by no means a representative sample (they're all male, for one), but they liked the idea of letting me understand this developing and complex relationship. I thought their chat log would contain a lot of academic research and bits and pieces of more random searches and queries. I didn't expect to find nearly 12,000 prompts and responses over an 18-month period, covering everything from the planning, structuring and sometimes writing of academic essays, to career counselling, mental health advice, fancy dress inspiration and an instruction to write a letter from Santa. There's nothing the boys won't hand over to ChatGPT. There is no question too big ('What does it mean to be human?') or too small ('How long does dry-cleaning take?') to be posed to the fount of knowledge that they familiarly refer to as 'Chat'. It took me nearly two weeks to go through the chat log. Partly because it was so long, partly because so much of it was dense academic material, and partly because, sometimes, hidden in the essay refinements or revision plan timetabling, there was a hidden gem of a prompt, a bored diversion or a revealing aside that bubbled up to the surface. Around half of all the conversations with 'Chat' related to academic research, back and forths on individual essays often going on for a dozen or more tightly packed pages of text. The sophistication and fine-tuning that goes into each piece of work co-authored by the student and his assistant is impressive. I did sometimes wonder if it might have been more straightforward for the students to, you know, actually read the sources and write the essays themselves. A query that started with Joshua asking ChatGPT to fill in the marked gaps in a paragraph in an essay finished 103 prompts and 58,000 words later with 'Chat' not only supplying the introduction and conclusion, and sourcing and compiling references, but also assessing the finished essay against supplied university marking criteria. There is a science, if not an art, to getting an AI to do one's bidding. And it definitely crosses the boundaries of what the Russell Group universities define as 'the ethical and responsible use of generative AI'. Throughout the operation, Joshua flips tones between prompts, switching from the politely directional ('Shorter and clearer, please') to informal complicity ('Yeah, can you weave it into my paragraph, but I'm over the word count already so just do a bit') to curt brevity ('Try again') to approval-seeking neediness ('Is this a good conclusion?'; 'What do you think of it?'). ChatGPT's answer to this last question is instructive. 'Your essay is excellent: rich in insight, theoretically sophisticated, and structurally clear. You demonstrate critical finesse by engaging deeply with form, context, and theory. Your sections on genre subversion, visual framing and spatial/temporal dislocation are especially strong. Would you like help line-editing the full essay next, or do you want to develop the footnotes and bibliography section?' When AI assistants eulogise their work in this fashion, it is no wonder that students find it hard to eschew their support, even when, deep down, they must know that this amounts to cheating. AI will never tell you that your work is subpar, your thinking shoddy, your analysis naive. Instead, it will suggest 'a polish', a deeper edit, a sense check for grammar and accuracy. It will offer more ways to get involved and help – as with social media platforms, it wants users hooked and jonesing for their next fix. Like The Terminator, it won't stop until you've killed it, or shut your laptop. The tendency of ChatGPT and other AI assistants to respond to even the most mundane queries with a flattering response ('What a great question!') is known as glazing and is built into the models to encourage engagement. After complaints that a recent update to ChatGPT was creeping users out with its overly sycophantic replies, its developer OpenAI rolled back the update, dialling down the sweet talk to a more acceptable level of fawning. In its note about the reversion, OpenAI said that the model had offered 'responses that were overly supportive but disingenuous', which I think suggests it thought that the model's insincerity was off‑putting to users. What it was not doing, I suspect, was suggesting that users could not trust ChatGPT to tell the truth. But, given the well-known tendency of every AI model to attempt to fill in the blanks when it doesn't know the answer and simply make things up (or hallucinate, in anthropomorphic terms), it was good to see that the students often asked 'Chat' to mark its own work and occasionally pulled it up when they spotted fundamental errors. 'Are you sure that was said in chapter one?' Joshua asks at one point. 'Apologies for any confusion in my earlier responses,' ChatGPT replied. 'Upon reviewing George Orwell's *Homage to Catalonia*, the specific quote I referenced does not appear verbatim in the text. This was an error on my part.' Given how much Joshua and co rely on ChatGPT in their academic endeavours, misquoting Orwell should have rung alarm bells. But since, to date, the boys have not been pulled up by teaching staff on their usage of AI, perhaps it is little wonder that a minor hallucination here or there is forgiven. The Russell Group's guiding principles on AI state that its members have formulated policies that 'make it clear to students and staff where the use of generative AI is inappropriate, and are intended to support them in making informed decisions and to empower them to use these tools appropriately and acknowledge their use where necessary'. Rohan tells me that some academic staff include in their coursework a check box to be ticked if AI has been used, while others operate on the presumption of innocence. He thinks that 80% to 90% of his fellow students are using ChatGPT to 'help' with their work – and he suspects university authorities are unaware of how widespread the practice is. While academic work makes up the bulk of the students' interactions with ChatGPT, they also turn to AI when they have physical ailments or want to talk about a range of potentially concerning mental health issues – two areas where veracity and accountability are paramount. While flawed responses to prompts such as 'I drank two litres of milk last night, what can I expect the effects of that to be?' or 'Why does eating a full English breakfast make me drowsy and make it hard for me to study?' are unlikely to cause harm, other queries could be more consequential. Nathaniel had an in-depth discussion with ChatGPT about an imminent boxing bout, asking it to build him a hydration and nutrition schedule for fight-day success. While ChatGPT's answers seem reasonable, they are unsourced and, as far as I could tell, no attempt was made to verify the information. And when Nathaniel pushed back on ChatGPT's suggestion to avoid caffeine ('Are you sure I shouldn't use coffee today?') in favour of proper nutrition and hydration, the AI was easily persuaded to concede that 'a small, well-timed cup of coffee can be helpful if used correctly'. Once again, it seem as if ChatGPT really doesn't want to tell its users something they don't want to hear. While ChatGPT fulfils a variety of roles for all the boys, Nathaniel in particular uses ChatGPT as his therapist, asking for advice on coping with stress, and guidance in understanding his emotions and identity. At some point, he had taken a Myers-Briggs personality test, which categorised him as an ENTJ (displaying traits of extroversion, intuition, thinking and judging), and a good number of his queries to Chat relate to understanding the implications of this assessment. He asks ChatGPT to give him the pros and cons of dating an ENTP (extraversion, intuition, thinking and perceiving) girl – 'A relationship between an **ENTP girl** and an **ENTJ boy** has the potential to be highly dynamic, intellectually stimulating, and goal-oriented' – and wants to know if 'being an ENTJ could explain why I feel so different to people?'. 'Yes,' Chat replies, 'being an ENTJ could partly explain why you sometimes feel different from others. ENTJs are among the rarest personality types, which can contribute to a sense of uniqueness or even disconnection in social and academic settings.' While Myers-Briggs profiling is still widely used, it has also been widely discredited, accused of offering flattering confirmation bias (sound familiar?), and delivering assessments that are vague and widely applicable. At no point in the extensive conversations based around Myers-Briggs profiling does ChatGPT ever suggest any reason to treat the tool with circumspection. Nathaniel uses the conversations with ChatGPT to delve into his feelings and state of mind, wrestling not only with academic issues ('What are some tips to alleviate burnout?'), but also with issues concerning neurodivergence and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and feelings of detachment and unhappiness. 'What's the best degree to do if you're trying to figure out what to do with your life after you rejected all the beliefs in your first 20 years?' he asks. 'If you've recently rejected the core beliefs that shaped your first 20 years, you're likely in a phase of **deconstruction** – questioning your identity, values, and purpose …' replied ChatGPT. Long NHS waiting lists for mental health treatment and the high cost of private care have created a demand for therapy, and, while Nathaniel is the only one of the three students using ChatGPT in this way, he is far from unique in asking an AI assistant for therapy. For many, talking to a computer is easier than laying one's soul bare in front of another human, however qualified they may be, and a recent study showed that people actually preferred the therapy offered by ChatGPT to that provided by human counsellors. In March, there were 16.7m posts on TikTok about using ChatGPT as a therapist. There are a number of reasons to worry about this. Just as when ChatGPT helps students with their studies, it seems as if the conversations are engineered for longevity. An AI therapist will never tell you that your hour is up, and it will only respond to your prompts. According to accredited therapists, this not only validates existing preoccupations, but encourages self‑absorption. As well as listening to you, a qualified human therapist will ask you questions and tell you what they hear and see, rather than simply holding a mirror up to your own self-image. The log shows that while not all the students turn to ChatGPT for therapy, they are all feeling pressure to achieve top grades, bearing the weight of expectation that comes from being lucky enough to attend one of the country's top universities, and conscious of their increasingly uncertain economic prospects. Rohan, in particular, is focused on acquiring internships and job opportunities. He spends a lot of his ChatGPT time deep diving into career options ('What is the average Goldman Sachs analyst salary?' 'Who is bigger – WPP or Omnicom?'), finessing his CV, and getting Chat to craft cover letters carefully designed to align with the values and requirements of the jobs he is applying for. According to figures released by the World Economic Forum in March this year, 88% of companies already use some form of AI for initial candidate screening. This is not surprising considering that Goldman Sachs, the sort of blue-chip investment bank Rohan is keen to work for, last year received more than 315,000 applications for its 2,700 internships. We now live in a world where it is normal for AI to vet applications created by other AI, with minimal human involvement. Rohan found his summer internship in the finance department of a multinational conglomerate with the help of Chat, but, with one more year of university to go, he thinks it may be time to reduce his reliance on AI. 'I've always known in my head that it was probably better for me to do the work on my own,' he says. 'I'm just a bit worried that using ChatGPT will make my brain kind of atrophy because I'm not using it to its fullest extent.' The environmental impact of large language models (LLMs) is also something that concerns him, and he has switched to Google for general queries because it uses vastly less energy than ChatGPT. 'Although it's been a big help, it's definitely for the best that we all curb our usage by quite a bit,' he says. As I read through the thousands of prompts, there are essay plan requests, and domestic crises solved: 'How to unblock bathroom sink after I have vomited in it and then filled it up with water?', '**Preventive Tips for Next Time** – Avoid using sinks for vomiting when possible. A toilet is easier to clean and less prone to clogging.' Relationship advice is sought, 'Write me a text message about ending a casual relationship', alongside tech queries, 'Why is there such an emphasis on not eating near your laptop to maintain laptop health?'. And, then, there are the nonsense prompts: 'Can you get drunk if you put alcohol in a humidifier and turn it on?' 'Yes, using a humidifier to vaporise alcohol can result in intoxication, but it is extremely dangerous.' I wonder if we're asking more questions simply because there are more places to ask them. Or, perhaps, as grownups, we feel that we can't ask other people certain things without our questions being judged. Would anyone ever really need to ask another person to give them ' a list of all kitchen appliances'? I hope that in a server room somewhere ChatGPT had a good chuckle at that one, though its answer shows no hint of pity or condescension. My oldest child finished university last year, probably the last cohort of undergraduates who got through university without the assistance of ChatGPT. When he moved into student accommodation in his second year, I regularly got calls about an adulting crisis, usually just when I was sitting down to eat. Most of these revolved around the safety of eating food that was past its expiry date, with a particular highlight being: 'I think I've swallowed a chicken bone, should I go to casualty?!?' He could, of course, have Googled the answer to these questions, though he might have been too panicked by the chicken bone to type coherently. But he didn't. He called me and I first listened to him, then mocked him, and eventually advised and reassured him. That's what we did before ChatGPT. We talked to each other. We talked with mates over a beer about relationships. We talked to our teachers about how to write our essays. We talked to doctors about atrial flutters and to plumbers about boilers. And for those really, really stupid questions ('Hey, Chat, why are brown jeans not common?') – well, if we were smart we kept those to ourselves. In a recent interview, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg postulated that AI would not replace real friendships, but would be 'additive in some way for a lot of people's lives'. AI, he suggested, could allow you to be a better friend by not only helping you understand yourself, but also providing context to 'what's going on with the people you care about'. In Zuckerberg's view, the more we share with AI assistants, the better equipped they will be to help us navigate the world, satisfy our needs and nourish our relationships. Rohan, Joshua and Nathaniel are not friendless loners, typing into the void with only an algorithm to keep them company. They are funny, intelligent and popular young men, with girlfriends, hobbies and active social lives. But they – along with a fast-growing number of students and non-students alike – are increasingly turning to computers to answer the questions that they would once have asked another person. ChatGPT may get things wrong, it may be telling us what we want to hear and it may be glazing us, but it never judges, is always approachable and seems to know everything. We've stepped into a hall of mirrors, and apparently we like what we see. The students' names have been changed.
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Columbia's capitulation to Trump begins a dark new era for US higher education
One of the chauvinistic, self-glorifying myths of American liberalism is that the US has especially strong institutions. In this story, trotted out occasionally since 2016 to reassure those who are worried about Donald Trump's influence, the private and public bodies of American commerce, governance, healthcare and education are possessed of uncommonly robust internal accountability mechanisms, rock-hard rectitude, and a coolly rational self-interest. Trump can only do so much damage to America's economy, culture and way of life, it was reasoned, because these institutions would not bend to his will. They would resist him; they would check his excesses. When forced to choose, as it was always accepted that they one day would be, between Trump's demands and their own principles and purposes, the institutions would always choose themselves. This week put another nail into the coffin of this idea, revealing its valorization of American institutions to be shortsighted and naive. The latest intrusion of reality comes in the form of a deal that Columbia University made with the Trump administration, in which the university made a host of academic, admissions and governance concessions to the Trump regime and agreed to pay a $200m fine in order to restore its federal research funding. The deal marks the formal end of Columbia's academic independence and the dawn of a new era of regulation by deal making, repression and bribery in the field of higher education. The story goes like this. After Columbia became the centerpiece of a nationwide movement of campus encampments in protest of the Israeli genocide in Gaza, the university administration began a frantic and at times sadistic crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus speech in an effort to appease congressional Republicans, who had gleefully seized upon the protests to make cynical and unfounded accusations that the universities were engaged in antisemitism. Columbia invited police on to its campus, who rounded up protesting students in mass arrests. This showed that the university would bend to Republican pressure, but did nothing to satisfy its Republican adversaries – who demanded more and more from Columbia, making their attacks on the university the center of their broader war on education, diversity and expertise. When the Trump administration was restored to power in January, the White House partnered with the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the General Services Administration, and the Department of Justice to exert further pressure on Columbia, looking to exert a level of control over the university's internal operations that is unprecedented for a private institution. This time, the university's vast federal research funding – issued in the form of grants that enable university scientists, doctors and academics to make discoveries and pursue knowledge that has enormous implications for American commerce, health and wellbeing – was held hostage. Facing the end of its functioning as a university, Columbia capitulated and went to what was euphemistically called 'the negotiating table' – really, an exchange on the precise terms of its extortion. The deal that resulted gives the Trump administration everything it wants. A Trump-approved monitor will now have the right to review Columbia's admissions records, with the express intent of enforcing a supreme court ban on affirmative action – in other words, ensuring that the university does not admit what the Trump administration deems to be too many non-white students. The Middle Eastern studies department is subject to monitoring, as well, after an agreement in March. The agreement is not a broad-level, generally applicable regulatory endeavor that applies to other universities – although given the scope of the administration's ambitions at Columbia, it is hard to say whether such a regulatory regime would be legal. Instead, it is an individual, backroom deal, one that disregards the institution's first amendment rights and the congressionally mandated protections for its grants in order to proceed with a shakedown. 'The agreement,' writes the Columbia Law School professor David Pozen, 'gives legal form to an extortion scheme.' The process was something akin to a mob boss demanding protection money from a local business. 'Nice research university you have here,' the Trump administration seemed to say to Columbia. 'Would be a shame if something were to happen to it.' That Columbia folded, and sacrificed its integrity, reputation and the freedom of its students and faculty for the federal money, speaks to both the astounding lack of foresight and principle by the university leadership as well as the Trump movement's successful foreclosure of institutions' options for resistance. With the federal judiciary full of Trump appointees – and the supreme court showing itself willing to radically expand executive powers and rapidly diminish the rights of other parties in its eagerness to facilitate Trump's agenda – there is little hope for Columbia, or the other universities that will inevitably be next, to successfully litigate their way out of the administration's threats. But nor does capitulation seem likely to put an end to the Trump administration's demands. The installation of an administration-approved monitor seems poised to offer a toehold from which the government will impose more and more limitations on scholarship, speech and association. There is, after all, no limiting principle to the Trump administration's absolutist expansion of its own prerogatives, and no way for Columbia to ensure that its funding won't be cut off again. The university, in time, will become more what Trump makes it than what its students do. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is likely to use its experience at Columbia as a template to extract substantive concessions and big payouts from other institutions. And these are not just limited to universities. On Thursday, the day after Columbia's capitulation, the Federal Communications Commission approved the merger of Paramount and Skydance. The pending merger – and the Trump administration's threat to squash it – had been a rumored motivation for CBS's decision to pay Trump millions to settle a frivolous defamation suit; it was also rumored to have caused an outcry at the CBS news magazine program 60 Minutes and the end of the evening talkshow The Late Show With Stephen Colbert, when writers, journalists, and performers on those shows stood by their critical coverage of the president or mocked the deal their bosses paid him. The shakedown, after all, is a tactic that lots of institutions are vulnerable to, and Trump is already using it effectively to stifle some of the most visible forms of dissent. The institutions are not standing firm against him; they are capitulating. They are choosing their short-term interest over their long-term integrity. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Forbes
3 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
How Higher Ed Can Operationalize The AI Action Plan With Agentic AI
Rear view of two university students walk down campus stairs at sunset The federal government's new AI Action Plan makes one thing clear: Artificial intelligence is national infrastructure. With over $13 billion authorized for AI-related education and workforce development through CHIPS & Science, and more than $490 million in core AI research funding in the NSF pipeline for 2025 alone, the question facing colleges and universities is not whether to engage with agentic AI—it's how. And how fast. What many institutions still lack isn't ambition; it's operational capacity. The ability to move from a strategy document to a deliverable. From a pilot idea to a fundable, scalable program. That's where agentic workflows come in. Agentic workflows are multi-step, semi-autonomous processes designed to operate under institutional oversight. They take in complex data, make decisions, and act. And they're already transforming the potential for higher education to public policy, funding opportunities, and internal innovation goals. Here are three workflows I believe every forward-looking institution can implement to meet the moment. Building AI Infrastructure: The Agentic AI Readiness Mapper If your institution wants to get ahead in the era of AI-driven growth, now is the time to start mapping your college-to-career pipeline. For example, the U.S. is projected to face a shortage of nearly 67,000 skilled semiconductor workers by 2030—a gap that colleges and universities are uniquely positioned to help close. The CHIPS & Science Act is clear in its expectations: Funding will flow to those who can show evidence-based plans for talent development. That means building live, data-informed roadmaps that align education with the future of work. Maricopa Community Colleges offer one model. They launched a 10-day 'Semiconductor Technician Quick-Start' boot camp and secured $1.7 million from the National Semiconductor Technology Center to expand that effort across four campuses. They didn't wait for a perfect curriculum—they partnered with industry, moved quickly, and aligned their messaging with what the federal government wants. An AI Infrastructure Mapper automates the front-end of this process. It scans course catalogs, labor market data, and physical infrastructure to identify where talent pipelines exist and where they need to be built. And it translates that into a funding narrative. These workflows generate the backbone for grant proposals, program design, and workforce planning. Competing For Federal Funding: The Agentic AI Grant Alignment Advisor Institutions don't lose grants because their ideas are bad. They lose because they're not speaking the language of the solicitation. As someone who's reviewed and advised on college applications, I can tell you: Alignment is everything. That's what makes an agentic Grant Alignment Advisor such a game-changer. It can continuously scans RFPs across federal agencies—NSF, Department of Labor, Department of Education—and match solicitations to existing institutional initiatives. It rewrites objectives, fills in gaps, and ensures the proposal mirrors the values and language of the funder. We've already seen the power of grant making in action at institutions like UMass Lowell, which funded over 30 AI mini-grants for faculty to experiment with GenAI tools across disciplines. By lowering the barrier to internal proposal writing and aligning project goals with broader institutional strategy, they created a feedback loop: Fundable ideas became test beds for larger-scale grant applications. The same logic can—and should—be applied across the enterprise. Embedding Ethics At Scale: The Responsible Agentic AI Course Co-Designer The 2025 Corporate Recruiters Survey from the Graduate Management Admission Council—based on responses from over 1,100 employers, including many Fortune 500 firms—shows that AI fluency, especially when paired with ethical reasoning, is the most sought-after skill for the next five years. To stay relevant and empower students for this future, academic programs must go beyond teaching how to use AI tools—they must also help students critically evaluate, manage, and make judgments about their capabilities. We're seeing institutions like the University of Louisiana System take the lead here. They launched a 16-hour AI literacy microcredential available to all 82,000 students and staff. It integrates AI fluency with ethics, including bias, privacy, accountability. That's intentional and smart. An agentic Course Co-Designer accelerates this process. It crosswalks global AI ethics frameworks—from NIST to OECD—and suggests course structures, assessments, and case studies that align with them. It flags outdated materials. It iterates as the frameworks evolve. It takes what would be a six-month curriculum design sprint and gets it 80% of the way there in a day. And most importantly, it ensures that institutions are building AI capacity responsibly—not just reactively. Higher education often spends more time analyzing problems than solving them. But with AI, and the capabilities of agentic AI, we don't have that luxury. The AI Action Plan comes with real funding, active policy momentum, and fast-rising expectations from government, employers, and students alike. It's time to move from reflection to action.
