Title: Controversy at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech Conference as Recent Harvard Grad Challenges EdTech CEO Over Widespread Cheating with A.I. Tools
Generational attitudes about A.I. in the classroom underwent a dramatic shift during a heated discussion at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference. A member of Gen Z found herself at odds with a baby boomer as they debated the ethical implications of A.I. and A.I.-powered tools like ChatGPT in education.
Nadya Okamoto, a 25-year-old nonprofit founder who graduated from Harvard in 2021, took the stage to express her concerns about the rampant cheating facilitated by A.I. tools. Addressing Dan Rosensweig, the 61-year-old CEO of education company Chegg, Okamoto revealed that she used Chegg not out of a genuine desire to learn, but simply to get answers for problem sets. She claimed that many young students are more interested in using ChatGPT and similar tools for the sake of completing homework effortlessly, rather than to enhance their understanding of the subject matter.
Rosensweig’s company, Chegg, provides a subscription service that assists students with homework and studying. However, its business has recently faced threats from free alternatives like OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard. These generative A.I. tools attract students with the allure of instant assistance, posing a significant challenge to Chegg’s paid service. In May, Chegg’s stock price plummeted by 49% in minutes due to overwhelming interest in generative A.I. among its customer base, despite the company reporting strong first-quarter earnings. Reflecting on this setback, Rosensweig jokingly referred to himself as the poster child for getting your ass kicked by A.I.
Attending the Brainstorm Tech conference to announce Chegg’s entry into the world of generative A.I., Rosensweig faced skepticism from Okamoto regarding his hopes that A.I. tools like Cheggmate would be utilized solely for educational purposes. Okamoto argued that such tools are detrimental to students’ active engagement with course materials, as they provide quick answers without encouraging deeper curiosity or critical thinking.
Drawing from personal experiences, Okamoto shared how she became sidetracked by raising funds for her startup during her junior year, leading her to rely on Chegg as an easy way to complete her studies. She admitted to adopting the mentality of C’s get degrees, implying that she prioritized achieving minimum passing grades over truly immersing herself in the learning process. Unfortunately, Okamoto did not respond to requests for further comment.
In response, Rosensweig dismissed Okamoto’s perspective, asserting that she was approaching the issue in the wrong way. He emphasized that Chegg was created with underprivileged students in mind who lack the same resources available to those attending elite universities like Harvard. Rosensweig asserted that the actions of Harvard students held little importance to him; his primary concern rested with students striving to improve their lives through education.
During the discussion, Rosensweig expressed his aspirations for the newly introduced Cheggmate, a virtual study assistant powered by generative A.I. He stated that the company aimed to provide personalized learning experiences tailored to each student’s needs, ultimately demonstrating their progress and growth.
Credit must be given to the potential benefits of a specialized generative A.I. tool like Cheggmate designed to assist students with their schoolwork, as opposed to broader applications like ChatGPT or Bard. While addressing the potential dangers of such tools, Rosensweig acknowledged that Chegg primarily caters to students who historically lack support from their educational institutions. These students may face unconventional college experiences, working additional hours to afford tuition or incorporating family responsibilities into their academic journey.
Furthermore, Rosensweig criticized academic institutions for their inertia, describing them as lazy for failing to update their curricula and faculty for not devising more thoughtful exam questions that cannot be easily answered by A.I. prompts such as ChatGPT.
My view is we are built for the student that is self-initiated, Rosensweig asserted. That wants to learn, and that needs to graduate with a skill.
In conclusion, the clash between Okamoto and Rosensweig at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference highlights the divide between generations concerning the use of A.I. tools in education. While Okamoto expressed concerns about the negative impact on student engagement and curiosity, Rosensweig defended Chegg’s mission to empower underprivileged students and bridge educational gaps. As the discussion continues, it is crucial to strike a balance between leveraging A.I. tools for academic support and ensuring that students actively participate in their learning journey.
