As a college professor, I get a lot of questions about homework — and lately they have almost all been about how artificial intelligence (AI) would change it. After all, if AIs can pass many medical, bar and economics exams, then they can certainly handle high-school or college homework.
Homework has long been a staple of the academic experience. How would it evolve as more students master the capabilities of (rapidly improving) AI systems? Or, to ask a slightly more pointed question: How am I supposed to know whether I am grading the student or the AI?
Big changes are in the offing, but they would arrive slowly. Classroom practices, for better or worse, are among the stickiest of human institutions. A lot of instruction has not changed much for thousands of years, even if modern chalk is better than its ancient precursors.
The main point is that grades would come to mean something different. Traditionally, at least in theory, grades have been a measure of how well a student understands the material. If they got an “A” in US history, presumably they could identify many of the founders. In the future, an “A” would mark a kind of conscientiousness: It would mean that, at the very least, they applied their AI consistently to the questions at hand. Whether that counts as “cheating” or “allowed” would depend on the policies of the relevant educational institution, but anti-AI software is not reliable and anti-AI rules cannot be enforced very readily.
“Applied their AI consistently” might sound unimpressive as a certification, but I have known many students over the years who do not meet even that standard. They might neglect to hand in homework or fail to monitor due dates. They migh not know the relevant material — often they do not — and it is not at all clear to me that current AI technology would automatically enable them to get good grades.
In other words, an academic system replete with AI is still testing for something, even if it is much less glorious than what we might have hoped for. Over time grades would come to indicate not so much knowledge of the material as a student’s ability to be organized and prepared.
To be clear, these are good habits to cultivate — and keep in mind that this new system would not be so dissimilar from the “status quo.” Students have collaborated on homework since homework has existed, including with their parents, whether they have been allowed to or not. The AI eases and speeds this collaborative process. There have never been entirely honest grades, not even in the “good old days.”
Still, there might continue to be a need or wish to test for knowledge of the actual material. This would have to be done in person. Maybe there would be exercises to be completed in the classroom, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Adrian Woolridge has noted, or oral exams in the “Oxbridge” style.
These adjustments are most likely to take place in fields where results matter in a direct and measurable way, such as physical engineering. They are perhaps less likely in the humanities, where a student who is using AI to fake knowledge probably would not get very far anyway.
Another kind of adjustment would involve assigned projects, to be created by the student and the AI working in tandem. I taught a class to law students last spring, and one of the requirements was that they collaborate with AI on a research paper — transparently of course, and with an explanation of how the AI was used. On average, students who learned how to work with the AI wrote better papers. This kind of collaborative skill would only become more crucial, and homework would evolve to reward that reality. In this context, using an AI to “cheat” is no longer an issue.
On the downside, collaborative projects with AI usually are less predictable and less “cookie cutter,” and thus harder for instructors to grade. That seems like a small price for teaching students this all-important skill.
There is no doubt that AI would change the nature of not only homework, but also instruction. A professor who can recite a lot of information might no longer seem so impressive: Why pay for what an AI can deliver more cheaply? Instead, the focus would shift to what only humans (so far) can provide: inspiration, charisma, mentoring. That, too would be a change for the better.
Tyler Cowen is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of economics at George Mason University and writes for the blog Marginal Revolution. He is coauthor of Talent: How to Identify Energizers, Creatives, and Winners Around the World. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS