More than a dozen Australian universities are assessing the effectiveness of AI detection software. Along with a priority on exploring matters of academic misconduct, especially as it relates to artificial intelligence. Indeed, this bold new technology has generated ferocious backlash. The Australian Catholic University accused thousands of students of cheating, but nearly all those students were eventually exonerated. Her case underscores the larger, ongoing fight across the education sector over how—and whether—to adapt and respond to the quickly changing landscape of AI technology.
Mark Bassett is an Associate Professor at Charles Sturt University, where he coordinates academic integrity and generative AI. He lambasted the over-reliance on such tools, deeming it a “lazy” substitute for a deeper overhaul of the curriculum and assessments. His comments point to a much larger issue. Universities could be using AI detection tools as the low-hanging fruit, avoiding the more complicated and less straightforward long-term solution of improving academic integrity overall.
Accusations and Consequences
Mary is a former student at one of the impacted universities. She experienced the fear of being where she would be accused of using AI in her students’ assessments. Her case underscores a broader trend. Anonymous sources in the University’s office of General Counsel told experts to expect as many as 30 students to be receiving similar accusations. The impact of these allegations can be devastating, causing anxiety and a loss of self-assurance in students.
Beth, a fellow student Beth, who faced accusations on two occasions while at the University of Melbourne. There, she thrived and went on to earn two degrees. Having served her “effective plea bargain” punishment from the university, she dropped out of her degree program altogether.
“I just decided to take the punishment because I was simply too scared to argue further.” – Beth
Beth described her emotional turmoil during this process, stating, “I was really in this spiral of what I like to call like an AI depression.” She expressed her doubts about her own abilities, saying, “I’m too stupid to be here, Melbourne Uni thinks I’m using generative AI and I’m dumb.” Her experience points to a distressing pattern among students today. Most of them report feeling like they’re stuck in a system that doesn’t really understand what it means to implement AI responsibly.
Institutional Responses
Luke Sheehy, CEO of Universities Australia, acknowledges the difficult position institutions are in. They’ve fallen behind in a desperation race to address the threat of these emerging AI technologies. He recommended that students who believe they have been treated unfairly by university decisions should bring their grievances to the National Student Ombudsman.
“I sympathise with students that have gone through a process where it looks like they’ve been accused of cheating and they haven’t,” Sheehy stated. He emphasized the importance of having a proper review process in place.
“Universities are trying to go through these challenges, and I want to emphasize that universities are actively working to rethink their policies and processes,” Sheehy added. “Universities are taking their own approaches to AI,” he explained, highlighting the lack of a unified strategy across the sector.
Associate Professor Bassett did not mince words in her condemnation of the current direction. He called it a “smorgasbord of incompetence” and claimed that universities are just engaged in a “game of hit and hope” rather than implementing solutions that work.
The Road Ahead
As Australian universities grapple with these moral and ethical issues, the efficacy of commercial AI detection software is being called into question. Queensland University of Technology (QUT) has been using AI tools including ChatGPT to help assess student submissions. Worries about equity and precision linger.
Professor Bassett emphasized an important point. He pointed out that by focusing only on detection tools, university leadership may present a show of action while not addressing the root causes of academic misconduct.
“It lets leaders at universities point to something they’ve done,” he remarked, adding that when regulatory bodies like TEQSA inquire about measures taken against AI risks, they can simply refer to their use of detection software.
