There seems to be a growing concern about the “predatory” practices of AI companies like OpenAI and Anthropic moving into educational spaces. Critics warn about the implications for student privacy, data usage, and the commercial incentives driving these companies. These are important considerations, to be sure.
Here’s a question though: does your institution require students to submit their assignments through Turnitin? You know, for integrity?
Education institutions typically mandate that students submit their intellectual property—essays, research papers, creative works—to a commercial entity that permanently archives this work in proprietary database. Students rarely have the option to opt out of these systems, even as their work builds a profitable commercial archive that powers a multi-million-pound business.
Meanwhile, many of the AI companies currently being framed as predatory explicitly offer ways for users to opt out of having their data used for training (see here and here, for example). It’s interesting to note that the companies being criticised for their data practices provide more choice than the plagiarism detection services we’ve normalised as necessary components of academic integrity.
The contrast is stark: we condemn new commercial entities entering education while unquestioningly accepting—even requiring—student participation in existing systems that are not without their own deeply concerning ethical practices. This isn’t about individual hypocrisy, but about inconsistent institutional principles regarding student data, commercial interests, and technological integration in education.
I wonder if what we’re seeing isn’t really concern about AI in education, but the discomfort of having some of our practices exposed and scrutinised through a new lens. The current system—with its emphasis on monitoring, detecting, and policing—isn’t some pedagogical ideal. It’s an imperfect model of education that we rarely pause to critically evaluate.
Before we decide which technologies belong in education, maybe we first need consistent principles about how student work is used, who profits from it, and what we really mean when we talk about integrity.