I enjoy the letter from Dr Craig Reeves (17 June) where he argues that institutions of higher education learned not to speak Massive fraud using generative ai to not offer revenues from international students. He was right that international students highlighted UK universities, which more than two-fifth parts the deficiency at the end of this academic year. But it is not true that universities can only enjoy AI cheating if they want. Dr Reeves said they need to use AI detectors, but studies he quoted this argument.
The final study he mentioned (Perkins et al, 2024) AI-detectors are indicated at least 40% of the cases, and that it falls 22% of the cases of “enemies intentionally intentionally. In that, AI detector failed to have a three-quarter of time.
So it’s wrong to say that there is a simple solution to geneciated ai problem. Some universities seek cases of misdemeanly verve against students using AI. But because AI did not travel, it was almost impossible to make sure that a student used AI, unless they claimed it.
In the meantime, institutions move “secure” estimates, such as in-person exams he celebrates. Some are designing assessments to think students will use AI. No university told everyone. But we don’t have to think of consulting when the confusion is simple explanation.
Josh Freeman
The policy manager, higher policy policy in education; Author, Student Generative Ai Survey 2025
The use of AI in “writing” of the things in higher education prompts important research and discussion of institutions, and the proper reporting of that research is clearly important. Craig Reeves mentioned three support papers to Turnitin You Checkerclaiming that universities choose from this function that it does not try this because of fear of false positive stimulus of written texts of man. One of the papers says: “Researchers concluded that the available seekers are not accurate or have a primary bias of a person who is written to a person who has been written to the AI’s second detectors to the AI trials, with 84% unknown (Perkins et al). An AI Detector can easily escape faults positive by not making any text.
We need to think carefully about how we can assess the job, if in a click almost unlimited the text can be done.
Prof Paul Johnson
Chester University
In a way it is deeply thought to criticize the apparent (and possible easy) separate area of higher education with a way of rooting the issue.
While I agree (and believed to be strong enough to do), I hope this return to the older behaviors is not going to have a “one of the scenes in a subject. Someone, no matter how good, however, however, however, read like paradoid streams. Attitude. A central transfer skill that the degrees of people offered are the ability to write well and any given subjects after research. The tests do not – not-offer that.
I will call for a step toward further analytical analysis, where students face new material to take into account a short time. I think that transit from traditional essays while the only form of evaluation can help reduce (no, of course, stop) the effect of external input. From experience, this focus can also help students move toward the application of new understanding, instead of a passive digestation of ideas.
Prof Robert McCloll Milar
Chairms in linguistics and scottish language, University of Aberdeen
