
It's true that my fellow students are embracing AI – but this is what the critics aren't seeing
Reading about the role of artificial intelligence in higher education, the landscape looks bleak. Students are cheating en masse in our assessments or open-book, online exams using AI tools, all the while making ourselves stupider. The next generation of graduates, apparently, are going to complete their degrees without ever having so much as approached a critical thought.
Given that my course is examined entirely through closed-book exams, and I worry about the vast amounts of water and energy needed to power AI datacentres, I generally avoid using ChatGPT. But in my experience, students see it as a broadly acceptable tool in the learning process. Although debates about AI tend to focus on 'cheating', it is increasingly being used to assist with research, or to help structure essays.
There are valid concerns about the abuse and overuse of large language models (LLMs) in education. But if you want to understand why so many students are turning to AI, you need to understand what brought us to this point – and the educational context against which this is playing out.
In March 2020, I was about to turn 15. When the news broke that schools would be closing as part of the Covid lockdown, I remember cheers erupting in the corridors. As I celebrated what we all thought was just two weeks off school, I could not have envisioned the disruption that would mar the next three years of my education.
That year, GCSEs and A-levels were cancelled and replaced with teacher-assessed grades, which notoriously privileged those at already well-performing private schools. After further school closures, and a prolonged period of dithering, the then-education secretary, Gavin Williamson, cancelled them again in 2021. My A-level cohort in 2023 was the first to return to 'normal' examinations – in England, at least – which resulted in a punitive crackdown on grade inflation that left many with far lower grades than expected.
At the same time, universities across the country were also grappling with how to assess students who were no longer physically on campus. The solution: open-book, online assessments for papers that were not already examined by coursework. When the students of the lockdown years graduated, the university system did not immediately return to its pre-Covid arrangements. Five years on, 70% of universities still use some form of online assessment.
This is not because, as some will have you believe, university has become too easy. These changes are a response to the fact that the large majority of current home students did not have the typical experience of national exams. Given the extensive periods of time we spent away from school during our GCSE and A-level years, there were inevitably parts of the curriculum that we were never able to cover. But beyond missed content, the government's repeated backtracking and U-turning on the format of our exams from 2020 onwards bred uncertainty that continued to shape how we were assessed – even as we progressed on to higher education.
In my first year of university, half of my exams were online. This year, they all returned to handwritten, closed-book assessments. In both cases, I did not get confirmation about the format of my exams until well into the academic year. And, in one instance, third-year students sitting the exact same paper as me were examined online and in a longer timeframe, to recognise that they had not sat a handwritten exam at any point during their degree.
And so when ChatGPT was released in 2022, it landed in a university system in transition, characterised by yet more uncertainty. University exams had already become inconsistent and widely variable, between universities and within faculties themselves – only serving to increase the allure of AI for students who felt on the back foot, and make it harder to detect and monitor its use.
Even if it were not for our botched exams, being a student is more expensive than ever: 68% of students have part-time jobs, the highest rate in a decade. The student loan system, too, leaves those from the poorest backgrounds with the largest amounts of debt. I am already part of the first year to have to pay back our loans over 40, rather than 30, years. And that is before tuition fees rise again.
Students have less time than ever to actually be students. AI is a time-saving tool; if students don't have the time or resources to fully engage with their studies, it is because something has gone badly wrong with the university system itself.
The use of AI is mushrooming because it's convenient and fast, yes, but also because of the uncertainty that prevails around post-Covid exams, as well as the increasing financial precarity of students. Universities need to pick an exam format and stick to it. If this involves coursework or open-book exams, there needs to be clarity about what 'proportionate' usage of AI looks like. For better or for worse, AI is here to stay. Not because students are lazy, but because what it means to be a student is changing just as rapidly as technology.
Elsie McDowell is an A-level student from south London. She was the 2023 winner of the Hugo Young award, 16-18 age category
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
TalkTalk on the brink as dreams of budget broadband billions unravels
As the modestly named American pianist John Legend took to the stage at Old Billingsgate Market in the City of London last week, one onlooker attracted almost as much attention. Sir Charles Dunstone was a special guest at an annual corporate jamboree hosted by Liberty Global, co-owner of the broadband and mobile giant Virgin Media O2. Normally, the presence of the chairman of a partner and rival would be nothing unusual at such an event. But Sir Charles's own broadband business TalkTalk is on its knees and the main topic of telecoms industry gossip. It narrowly avoided collapse last year, and has now sparked turmoil across the sector after falling behind on payments to suppliers. While Sir Charles indulged in some easy balladry, TalkTalk's future hung in the balance. Its predicament has sparked alarm in Whitehall over fears that more than three million customers could be left in the lurch if it collapses. As the company struggles under an exodus of customers and crippling debt costs, Sir Charles is attempting one last throw of the dice: an ambitious scheme to break up the business and sell it off for parts. It raises the prospect of an ignominious ending for Sir Charles, the founder and executive chairman whose shareholding risks being wiped out in any future deal. With TalkTalk on the precipice, can bosses carve a path to survival for the broadband supplier? TalkTalk's troubles have been a long time in the making. Sir Charles spun TalkTalk out of his mobile phone retailer Carphone Warehouse in 2010 and grew it into a major broadband provider targeting the budget end of the market. But a series of acquisitions, coupled with a highly leveraged £1.1bn take-private deal in 2021, loaded the company up with debt. As competition in the broadband market has grown more fierce and margins have narrowed, this balance sheet strain has taken its toll. TalkTalk was saved from insolvency in an 11th-hour rescue deal last year, with Sir Charles and other shareholders including major investor Toscafund pumping in £235m to keep it afloat. Yet the bailout has done little more than kick the can down the road. TalkTalk, which has around 3.2m customers, is still grappling with eye-watering repayments on its debts of £1.2bn. Making matters worse, revenues are in reverse as the company haemorrhages customers amid deep job and spending cuts. The cash woes are such that TalkTalk has fallen behind on payments to suppliers including BT's Openreach in recent months. In response, BT has reportedly threatened to block TalkTalk from putting new customers on its network. TalkTalk argues that it has a fully-funded business plan and that its cost-cutting strategy has begun to pay off. But with the prospects of a turnaround looking slim, the company is now poised for a full break-up. Bosses are hiring advisers to oversee a sale of the group's consumer and wholesale divisions. TalkTalk has already sold its business-to-business unit back to its shareholders in a £95m deal. However, observers point out that the break-up could put off potential suitors as they would be hamstrung by complex agreements between the consumer and wholesale arms. James Ratzer, an analyst at New Street Research, says: 'I think any buyer would be most interested in the whole company to give them flexibility to restructure it as they like.' Should a sale not materialise, TalkTalk's bondholders – largely consisting of asset managers – could end up taking control of the company. Either way, these outcomes would be likely to cement an embarrassing misstep for Sir Charles, who founded his telecoms empire from the boot of a car. The tycoon has previously rebuffed attractive takeover offers, including a £3bn approach from Virgin Media O2 (VMO2) three years ago. Now with TalkTalk's equity value thought to be zero, he risks being left empty-handed. 'We struggle to see any scenario in which the sponsors will be able to get any equity capital returned to them,' said Ratzer. 'Surely last year they should have refused to put in new capital and handed the business over to the creditors at that stage, rather than injecting further money?' That ship has sailed, however, and shareholders must now decide whether to pump yet more money into TalkTalk, or bail out now. Bondholders, who would be likely to take a haircut as part of any deal, have been pushing shareholders to stump up more money. A source familiar with the matter said the company was in 'advanced' talks to raise an additional £100m through a combination of existing investors and asset sales. Some of TalkTalk's bonds have slumped to trade as low as 44p in recent weeks, indicating a lack of confidence that the company will be able to repay its debts. While this has now risen to 58p, it remains well below the price of around 80p in April. Ares Management, which owns a stake in TalkTalk and provided it with a £440m high-interest loan, is now thought to be in the driving seat given its dual role as shareholder and debtholder. It took additional security over the company in last year's refinancing. A source close to Ares said it was still 'very supportive' of the company. Beyond the corporate intrigue is a political headache for the Government. With financial troubles mounting, government officials have expressed concerns about the possibility of TalkTalk collapsing, according to multiple industry sources. This would be of particular concern given TalkTalk is thought to have a significant number of vulnerable customers, including elderly people and those on lower incomes. Regulator Ofcom has for several years been drawing up contingency plans in case of a supplier collapse, but these have largely been focused on the scores of 'alt-net' firms that have cropped up to challenge the dominance of BT. 'The expectation has always been that it would be an alt-net that would fail, not an established internet service provider', says Matthew Howett, at Assembly Research. Karen Egan, at Enders Analysis, says: 'It will be worrying [the Government] because they do have a high proportion of vulnerable customers. 'I think there's a fear of a lot of disruption, but in the case of TalkTalk there's a lot of ways they can ensure the service doesn't ever go down.' Potential options include a 'supplier of last resort' scenario, similar to the one used in the energy sector. This would see a trusted larger player, such as BT, appointed to take over TalkTalk's customer base should it collapse. Alternatively, the Government could intervene to prop up the company for a limited period, giving customers time to switch to a different provider of their choosing. Most people in the industry believe a full-blown insolvency is unlikely. 'I think everyone knows that there are safety nets in the market,' says one source. But as TalkTalk's troubles deepen, larger rivals are starting to circle. Executives at BT have held early-stage discussions about a potential takeover amid concerns that the former monopoly's Openreach division is taking a hit from TalkTalk's customer losses. VMO2 is also understood to be interested in a potential swoop after its previous approach failed. Mike Fries, the chief executive of VMO2's co-owner Liberty Global, is said to be close to Sir Charles. However, any takeover bid by BT or VMO2 would trigger serious competition concerns and face protracted regulatory scrutiny. Sky, which has previously weighed up a bid for TalkTalk, is not thought to be interested. As a result, Vodafone has emerged as a viable contender. The telecoms giant is in the throes of integrating mobile network Three following a £15bn merger and chief executive Max Taylor has insisted the company has 'no plans for inorganic activity' in its fixed business. Nevertheless, VodafoneThree has earmarked broadband as a major opportunity for growth, so TalkTalk's sizeable customer base could prove an attractive proposition. Any rescue deal would ensure continued service for customers and avoid a messy collapse, albeit while leaving Sir Charles high and dry. But with TalkTalk's survival far from guaranteed, officials will be keeping a close eye on how the crisis unfolds. 'The policy interventions in fixed broadband have been good up until now,' says Howett. 'It would be a shame to see the TalkTalk saga blemish that reputation.' A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said: 'It would not be appropriate to comment on speculation, or commercial matters relating to specific companies. 'The UK broadband market continues to be a highly competitive market with plenty of choice for consumers. Our priority is ensuring customers, particularly those with vulnerabilities, are protected as the market evolves.'


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘Stop hiring humans': Customer service under threat as robots take hold
Workers commuting on the London Underground have been confronted with a terrifying message in recent weeks. Scrolling digital adverts, displayed on the Tube's escalators, have urged businesses to 'stop hiring humans' and use artificial intelligence (AI) robots instead. The spooky messages are the work of Artisan, an artificial intelligence (AI) start-up, which launched the guerrilla-marketing campaign to promote its AI software. But the ads have hit a nerve with London's commuter class, tapping into deep-seated fears that fake human workers are coming for their jobs. Hundreds of businesses across the country are now deploying AI workers instead of people. But instead of a brave new world of efficient robotic workers, there are mounting fears that the increased use of AI and chatbots will simply make things worse for customers and workers. Daniel O'Sullivan, a customer service analyst at Gartner, says consumers have justifiably had concerns about the rise of AI because 'chatbots have historically sucked'. Lisa Webb, a consumer law expert at Which?, says: 'Not all chatbots are built equally. While some can be helpful, others can send customers round in circles and make it difficult for them to get their issues resolved.' Replacing drudge-work For managers looking to cut costs, the pitch to replace human workers with AI software is compelling. On Artisan's website, it pitches 'your future colleagues' – Aria, Ava and Aaron – and promises customers they can get results 'without increasing headcount'. For now, Artisan is targeting the drudge-work of business sales, helping companies to automate outbound cold emails and the initial conversations with potential clients, work normally done by a very junior sales worker. The start-up is not yet dealing with consumer-facing customer service roles, which Jaspar Carmichael-Jack, Artisan's 23-year-old founder, says raise 'more issues' and risks. In the context of a business transaction, there may be little to lose with using AI to automate and personalise thousands of cold call pitches, job adverts or PR emails which may never get opened. But when it comes to interactions with consumers, 'the error rate is too high across the board', Carmichael-Jack says. 'That is why people have this anti-AI sentiment.' That has not stopped hundreds of businesses using AI worker and experimenting with AI customer service, whether the public wants it or not. Dozens of technology businesses have promised AI helpers that can smooth over customer service functions. These include AI bots from start-ups like the UK's PolyAI, which bills its technology as the 'most lifelike' voice agents, to tech giants such as Salesforce and its 'Agentforce' bots. High-profile businesses such as Klarna, the buy now, pay later provider, have already raced to replace jobs once taken by humans with AI bots. A question of quality But so far, these fake humans have produced mixed results. In some cases, companies have completely reversed course. At Klarna, Sebastian Siemiatkowski, the chief executive, went all in on AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, seeking to swap human-led customer service for AI, dramatically cutting jobs. However, in an interview earlier this year, the Swedish company's boss admitted this AI zeal had not worked out. 'What you end up having is lower quality,' he told Bloomberg, adding that 'investing in the quality of the human support is the way of the future for us'. So far, the public is not sold on the idea that AI agents are going to lead to an improvement in customer service. A survey from Gartner, published last year, found that 64pc of people would prefer it if companies did not use AI in customer service interactions at all, and 60pc feared it would make it harder to speak to a human – putting up an AI middleman. And there are plenty of examples of early attempts at AI-powered customer service getting it wrong. In 2024, a DPD chatbot swore when prompted by users and told customers that 'DPD is useless' and 'don't bother calling them'. In April this year, an AI support bot called Sam for the code editor app Cursor went rogue. After users found a bug within Cursor's service that booted them out when they tried to log in from multiple machines, Sam told customers that this was part of a new policy. Users were not aware that Sam was a bot, leading some to threaten to cancel their subscriptions. And last year, Air Canada was forced to honour a refund after its website's chatbot invented a policy when interacting with a customer. Generative AI-powered chatbots, which are trained to speak in plain English, suffer from a problem known as 'hallucination', whereby the AI will sometimes simply make up information if it does not know the answer. These bugs in customer service bots risk driving consumers away. A survey from customer service firm Acquire Intelligence found that 70pc of consumers would take their business elsewhere if they were let down by a bot. Such errors and risks mean that some companies that were among the first movers to try out AI agents as a replacement for human workers are already winding back. In a survey published this month, Gartner found that half of companies that were planning to replace their customer service staff with AI were considering abandoning the plans. 'AI agents' However, O'Sullivan predicted that rapidly advancing technology and changes in customer expectations mean the shift to AI workers is unlikely to stop completely. 'Perceptions here are changing very quickly,' he says. 'Even in the space of one year, we have people becoming more accustomed to using AI.' He added that when it comes to customer service woes, people want their problem solved, and the 'means through which they solve the issue is not necessarily the most important thing to them'. If bots get more effective than a human, consumers could quickly decide they prefer them to speaking to a real person. If the tech industry is to be believed, this shift is just around the corner. Increasingly advanced 'AI agents' – big tech's latest buzzword – are supposed to be able to take on ever more complex tasks from human workers. While customer support bots once could only provide basic question and answer functionality, agents will be able to draw information from across a business and function more autonomously. 'Customer frustration with traditional chatbots has typically stemmed from the tools' limited capabilities,' says Heidi O'Leary, a partner at Deloitte Digital. 'Agentic AI goes a step further, allowing these assistants to take actions on a customer's behalf – for example, initiating a return or refund without human intervention.' For now, she says the most successful uses of AI in customer service have kept humans in the loop, using AI as a tool to boost the performance of human staff, for instance, by quickly drafting emails or notes. Artisan's Carmichael-Jack says AI bots are 'not currently as effective as a human in a lot of use cases'. But this is rapidly changing, with tech companies building more accurate AI bots and attempting to instil 'reasoning' in them. He expects perceptions of AI employees to 'shift over the next couple of years because we know it is going to get it right'. In the near future, he expects that people would 'rather be put through to AI than to an offshore call centre. People will want to speak to an AI agent and you will be that annoyed if you are put through to a human'.


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Dawn of the drone age: how agri-tech is boosting production and morale
'The idea came from an Instagram video,' says Tom Amery, looking admiringly at one of three huge drones he has bought to help grow watercress on a Hampshire farm. The drone boasts four sets of rotary blades and is able to carry up to 50kg of fertiliser, seed or feed for spreading or spraying, and is the product of several years of meticulous research by Amery, often using the unlikely corners of social media dedicated to agricultural technology. Amery and The Watercress Company, where he is managing director, are among the food producers attempting to embrace cutting-edge tech in one of the world's oldest professions to help speed up processes and boost production in the face of extreme weather. It's a challenge the government appears alive to, with agri-tech included in its industrial strategy earlier this month. The company has invested £80,000 in the Agras T50 drones, made by the Chinese company DJI and designed for agricultural use. Distributing potash or phosphate by drone rather than by hand will be 'two to three times faster than walking', Amery says. This will mean it can be applied in a more targeted way, reducing the amount of fertiliser needed for the crop, which ends up in the 25m bags of salad it sells each year through the UK's largest supermarkets. Despite the long-running discussion over whether machines will replace humans in agricultural jobs, Amery said the investment would boost morale. 'It's about staff retention, taking out an unfavourable part of the job,' he adds. 'We will pay the operators more. With more pay, staff are more likely to stay.' While such drones are already in use on farms in North and South America, as documented in detail on social media, they remain a novelty in the UK. The Watercress Company's drones are currently grounded, as the business awaits the permits required by the aviation watchdog, the Civil Aviation Authority. However, Amery hopes they will soon be fitted with hoppers and whizzing above the watercress beds across the grower's 20 hectares of land, spread across 12 Hampshire and Dorset farms. The route for each field can be programmed in advance, while 20-year-old employee George Mathews has been trained up and has obtained a licence to pilot the drones. Even though The Watercress Company follows growing methods largely unchanged since Victorian times – when the leaves first gained popularity in the UK as a source of nutrition, especially for the urban poor – it is no stranger to technology. Today's crop is still grown in watercress beds fed by natural streams that have been in use since the 1880s, although the leaves are now cut every other day between May and October using a bespoke harvester. The grower is also trialling multispectral cameras, which are able to capture images in various spectral bands – or ranges of wavelengths – far beyond what the human eye can see. The images can produce a 'heatmap' of the fields, which are analysed by AI to assess the location of any crop problems. The Watercress Company is pursuing the kind of innovation the National Farmers' Union (NFU) wants to see adopted by more UK farms, as food producers look to work in a more efficient and more sustainable way. However, at a time when many farmers are feeling the financial squeeze, the NFU believes that few will have the money, or confidence, to invest in new and potentially untested technology. This is also essential to improve productivity in the farming sector, the NFU says, warning that without it, the UK risks slipping further behind its international competitors. 'Driving forward productivity to build domestic food production should be on every government's list,' says Tom Bradshaw, the president of the NFU. 'Among our European neighbours there is evidence that we are falling behind and are not as productive in some areas.' In the industrial strategy, agri-tech, along with precision breeding, has been included as areas of focus within the growth sector plan and the NFU believes this will help farming businesses to 'become more productive, sustainable and resilient'. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion The government's farming innovation programme has been allocated £200m up to 2030, which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said would offer 'targeted funding to drive innovation in agriculture'. 'Driving innovation and growth in agri-tech is a win-win for the nation,' says the farming minister, Daniel Zeichner. 'Not only can we create jobs, strengthen economic resilience and ensure food security is maintained, we can boost the profits of farmers and growers through innovation.' However, the announcement came just days after the farming budget in England was cut by £100m a year in the government's spending review, which reduced Defra's day-to-day spending budget by 2.7%, although this was cautiously welcomed by the NFU and farming groups, who had feared greater cuts. Back in Hampshire, The Watercress Company is not convinced that it will benefit from the money allocated for the farming innovation programme. 'Lots of this funding is often driven by high-level innovation, and often lots of that doesn't make it to the farm gate or doesn't result in increased levels of production and productivity,' says Amery. 'You can end up putting a huge amount of investment into technology not proven to provide results.' Up to now, the grower has carried the cost of almost all of its innovation itself. It was able to secure £20,000 of funding, representing around a quarter of its drone investment, from the government's shared prosperity fund, through its local council. However, Amery says the business is rarely able to access funding such as R&D tax credits, which are only available to companies which are required to pay corporation tax. Partnerships, like The Watercress Company and many others in the farming sector, as well as sole traders, do not pay corporation and are therefore ineligible. This has not put the grower off seeking out the latest gadgets to improve his crop. 'Innovation is usually driven by a desire to overcome a problem,' says Amery. 'I think we get one major innovation every five to 10 years, one that is a game-changer.'