What pro-ID educators can ignore education

Chatgpt and other tools fueled by AI make much more difficult to be a teacher these days. Although there are several facets at AI-in-education Discussion, more and more students use these tools to cheat (Goodier, 2025; Pandy, 2025). And teachers are not paid in addition when they rush for long hours to solve the problem.

Many educators, administrators and even students have publicly shared their point of view. I could say that there are two camps that are formed, pro and anti-ai, but it would be an excessive simplification. I am somewhere in the middle. But I noticed that those who plead in favor of AI in the pursuit by higher education students show more classic errors or prejudices compared to those who largely oppose it (not that the latter are impeccable).

Perhaps in the middle of a academic panicBeing pro-ai is the most difficult sale, which can lead some to this position to rely on persuasive rhetorical devices that are based on logical errors. The discussion points less than rational do not automatically deny the validity of a pro-Ai position, but they certainly do not help.

False dichotomies

A counter common to those who want to prohibit AI to combat cheating is to say that we cannot stop any cheating. A ban by AI “will not work” because “children will (always) understand something” (Roose, 2025). Makes sense, right? Not really.

The error everything or nothing here is to treat an approach like the trouble to be tried unless it stops each piece of cheating, as if we stop all or none of this. A student author even entitled his Pro -i article, “Banning Chatgpt will not stop cheating” (Price, 2025). Of course, we cannot stop cheating everything. The real goal is to reduce Cheating what an AI ban can do.

The other declarations which give a false dichotomy include sentences or and rather than. “Rather than weakening students' efforts, artificial intelligence Can help prepare students for the real world “,” critical thinking is more important than memorization by heart “, AI is” an opportunity rather than a threat “and” we have the choice here to lean or run away “(Abramson, 2025).

Is there anything between the two and run away? The use of AI can both weaken students' efforts and prepare students for the real world; Educators can both improve critical thinking and require a certain memorization by heart; And AI can be both an opportunity and a threat.

Sophism of the man of straw

A natural extension of these dichotomies is to exaggerate the anti-ai position. Characterizing an A-Ban approach as an attempt to stop all cheating, it is easier to criticize and is a case of the error of the straw man.

The opposition to AI has also been distorted because the thought of AI “will destroy” education, the thought of AI is an “uncontrollable temptation which undermines everything” and “putting our head behind the curtain or under the leaves and hoping that it disappears” (Heaven, 2025; singer, 2025a, singer 2025b). It is easier to criticize those against AI if they hide under leaves and catastrophization This AI will destroy everything.

A MIT study has recently shown certain potential negative cognitive effects for using AI. Despite the meticulous wording of the authors of a “measurable impact” while noting several limitations in their conclusion (Kosmyna, 2025), two educators at The conversation Entitled their article, “MIT researchers say that the use of chatgpt can rot your brain” (Kovanovic and Brown, 2025). A conclusion of the brain's rot is easier to criticize, but criticisms do not need to seek further than the fact that the study is not yet officially published or evaluated by peers.

Sophism of the East

In a world where AI exists (the argument goes), we must accept it, because AI is “here to stay”. It “is not going anywhere”. Even if it is true, the idea that the simple fact that something is here means that we must adopt it is a classic error. Historically and now, men occupy most power posts, but that does not mean that women should not be allowed to do so. The disease is part of life, but that does not mean that we have to stop trying to find remedies.

False equivalences

Many AI defenders cite the use of calculators in education. The worst concerns concerning calculators have never materialized, so why do we do stories on the Chatppt? Some teachers who use AI in their teaching have been called hypocrites if they do not allow students to use it (Hill, 2025). These both seem to be false equivalences.

Among many differences, calculators have not replaced conceptual understanding, while AI can easily get around it. And the teachers do not try to win a diploma.

Education requires a fair assessment

In decline against AI prohibitions, pro -i educators cite the many ways that students can help learn. The potential is incredible. But I wonder if they could slightly neglect this education, it is more than education.

Educators must also check if what they do really helps. Educators must assess the knowledge and skills of students to ensure that students are ready for the following price, higher education or employment, and they must do so in a way that no student has unfair advantages compared to others. In unprotected parameters, AI availability makes the valid and reliable evaluation almost impossible.

As a social psychologist, I wonder if the sub-recognition of the evaluation piece could be partly explained by cognitive dissonance Theory or normality biaswhere those who live closest to an environmental disaster can see the slightest concern (Festinger, 1957; McRaney, 2012). Are teachers the most close residents of this educational crisis?

In short

I know that anti-ai educators are not always rational in their own rhetoric. Maybe I am stuck in my teaching ways, although I have considerably revised my assessments as cheating increases. And I recognize that most pro -i educators must care about evaluation and learning.

But certain points of discussion in black and white or exaggerated by the defenders of the AI ​​can hide the depth of the challenges of the readers and even of themselves. Take -up or online gradation work may no longer be viable. Completely pro -proxy assessments can be the only way to follow.