College professors across the United States are rapidly adopting generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT to prepare course materials, grade assignments, and even provide student feedback—a trend sparking frustration and debate among students, who question whether AI-generated content shortchanges the human value they expect from their education. The issue was brought into sharp public focus by recent student complaints at top-tier institutions, including a widely discussed case at Northeastern University, fueling a broader conversation about ethics, transparency, and educational quality in the era of AI-enhanced teaching.
Many Thai students and educators are likely to find the controversy familiar as Thai universities, too, navigate the integration of new technology, with concerns echoing around academic integrity, fairness, and student–teacher interactions. The central tension—between the promise of AI as a tool to enhance learning and the fear of diluting the irreplaceable human elements of education—has taken on global significance.
The core of the controversy stems from revelations that some university professors are quietly using generative AI to create lecture slides, model answers, and student feedback—sometimes even as their own syllabuses forbid students from doing the same. In one instance at Northeastern University, a business professor uploaded materials generated by ChatGPT, Perplexity, and AI-based presentation software onto the course’s online platform. Telltale AI hallmarks—stock phrases, odd image distortions, and unpolished text—were soon noticed by students. As reported by The New York Times, a student who discovered the materials filed a formal complaint demanding a refund of more than $8,000, highlighting both ethical concerns and the perceived disconnect between tuition costs and the educational experience delivered (The New York Times, 2025).
Students nationwide have begun scrutinizing their course materials for “AI tells” and openly criticizing what they see as a double standard: being told not to rely on chatbots by instructors who use those very tools themselves. Online forums and rating platforms like Rate My Professors now feature scores of comments calling out what students perceive as the undermining of the educational process—and the hypocrisy of AI use within environments that purport to value original human work.
University instructors, meanwhile, defend their use of AI as a practical response to growing workloads and increasingly stretched resources. With ever-expanding class sizes, many instructors see chatbots as a necessary “teaching assistant” that helps manage the mechanics of providing feedback or crafting assignments, while still preserving their expertise for more meaningful interactions. A recent survey by Tyton Partners, an education consultancy, found that the proportion of higher-education instructors in the US who describe themselves as frequent users of generative AI tools nearly doubled within a year.
Industry interest has only accelerated this trend. Major AI developers, such as OpenAI and Anthropic, now offer enterprise versions of their chatbots specifically designed for university use. This commercial push signals the normalization of AI in academic contexts—a development mirrored in Thailand, where some universities have begun pilot AI advisory tools for students (Bangkok Post, 2024).
However, the transition has not been smooth. The rapid adoption of AI tools has exposed gaps in policy, ethical guidance, and digital literacy, both among students and faculty. One particularly striking example involves a professor at Southern New Hampshire University who mistakenly posted a ChatGPT-generated grading rubric and feedback to a student, revealing the extent to which AI was used in assessment—triggering frustration and, in that student’s case, a university transfer. Southern New Hampshire’s Vice President for AI emphasized that while their guidelines permit faculty use of AI, these tools are meant to “enhance, rather than replace, human creativity and oversight,” underlining a principle intended to prevent the automation of critical teaching tasks.
Educators such as Dr. Shovlin—a teaching assessment specialist quoted by The New York Times—insist that students must learn to navigate AI responsibly, as these tools will be ubiquitous in future workplaces. The goal, say proponents, is not simply to lighten the academic workload, but to support new forms of teaching and learning. Dr. Shovlin points out that previous content outsourcing, such as purchasing lesson plans from third-party publishers, is well established in higher education, and AI should be viewed as an iteration of this practice. Others, like Dr. Malan of Harvard University, have embraced AI by integrating custom chatbots into large introductory courses, seeing them as a way to scale support for hundreds of students and focus limited faculty and teaching assistant time on deeper, more engaging interactions.
These developments are not without risks or downsides. Custom chatbots and AI-generated tools can introduce factual errors, impersonal feedback, or reliance on bland, generic phrasing—a concern frequently cited by students. There are also longer-term workforce implications: as tasks traditionally assigned to graduate teaching assistants are overtaken by AI, questions arise over the future development and training of the next generation of professors. “It will absolutely be an issue,” says Dr. Pearce, who has developed custom AI chatbots for student feedback, underlining the staffing and pipeline challenges that could reshape academia across the world.
A central theme emerging from recent policy changes, especially at Northeastern, is the need for transparency and oversight. The university now requires that any use of AI tools in teaching outputs be disclosed and properly reviewed for accuracy and appropriateness—a policy that many Thai educational institutions could look to as a model. In the Thai context, this aligns with ongoing efforts to balance digital innovation with the high cultural value placed on personal mentorship, face-to-face instruction, and the preservation of teacher-student relationships, as reflected in the enduring significance of Wai Khru ceremony and respect for academic hierarchy (Thai PBS World, 2023).
As AI becomes more entrenched in higher education, Thai universities face similar issues over how to determine when AI use supports learning and when it undermines educational quality or fairness. Questions about tuition value are especially relevant in Thailand, where public and private universities compete for students amid concerns about spiraling costs and equitable access to quality teaching. As AI tools become more sophisticated—and more integrated into both teaching and administrative work—institutions must reckon with the impact on student satisfaction, perceived value, and the delicate balance of technological efficiency versus human connection.
Looking ahead, educators and policymakers in Thailand and globally will need to establish clear, context-sensitive guidelines for AI use in universities—balancing innovation with ethical oversight, and responding transparently to student concerns. Policies must address not only issues of academic integrity and consistency, but also the broader implications for workforce development, student–teacher relationships, and the long-term value of higher education credentials in an AI-driven world.
For Thai readers—students, parents, educators, and administrators alike—the practical recommendation is to actively engage in ongoing discussions around AI integration in education. Institutions should promote clarity in their AI policies, ensuring students are informed about how these technologies are used in their courses. Students are encouraged to provide feedback, participate in policy review processes, and learn to use AI tools themselves responsibly, so as to maximize their personal and professional readiness for a rapidly changing world. Ultimately, the goal should be not to reject technological evolution, but to shape it deliberately, reflecting the values and priorities of Thai society.
For further reading on the issue and specific cases discussed, see The New York Times original article. For Thai context, consider the ongoing reflections in educational reporting from Bangkok Post and technology features on Thai PBS World.