Trust in the Use of AI is the Key
A new study from UC Berkeley reports that using AI is a slippery slope for undergraduates. The more they use it, the more likely they are to cheat with it. But AI proficiency also may be important for career development. Thee following information comes from a news release by UC Berkeley about the study. The study results are important to explore where students seem concerned about whether AI will take over their job responsibilities, limiting the number of job opportunities after graduation.
Igor Chirikov, a senior researcher at UC Berkeley’s Center for Studies in Higher Education, has published the largest study of generative AI use by undergraduates, in collaboration with researchers from the University of Technology Sydney and Cornell University. More than 95,000 students at 20 research-intensive public universities responded to questions about how they use AI, including whether they use it to cheat. The findings were published on May 21, 2026 in Science.
The study, conducted in the spring of 2024, used data collected by Berkeley’s Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) Consortium, a group of research universities that collaborate on surveying students to improve higher education. The results indicate that “about two-thirds of respondents said they used GenAI, and almost 40% used it monthly or even more frequently. What’s more, at least 9% of students who used AI reported using it to cheat. That number varied significantly by academic discipline, with more non-STEM students cheating with AI than STEM students. But the researchers caution that banning GenAI won’t stop cheating and may even harm students when they look for work in industries that expect AI proficiency. Chirikov and his coauthors recommend that academic programs find new ways of measuring students’ knowledge and abilities that can’t be faked with AI”
Cheating By Students
According to the study, it’s not always clear to students what is cheating versus what is an acceptable use of generative AI, and that there can be a slippery slope to cheating — 26% of daily AI users said they used it to cheat, while only 7% of monthly users did. Chirikov stated in the interview that the authors don’t know whether frequency of AI use causes students to cheat more, or just students who are more likely to cheat in general tend to use those instruments more often. But the trend is worrisome in that you see this clear correlation where AI misuse increases as students use AI more frequently.
Chirikov was asked what he thinks motivated the students who knew they were cheating, or thought they were, and did it anyway? One possibility is that a lot of bright students are in this competitive environment where grades matter so much, and it’s important to have a perfect GPA to get an internship or get into graduate school. And because higher education is expensive for students and families, there is also pressure to finish as quickly as possible without falling behind.
Chirikov want on and explained that there are all these AI tools that make their use very easy. Instead of spending an all-nighter on an assignment, you can generate something in under 30 minutes and submit it. “I think those two forces create a perfect storm for AI-assisted cheating. And learning is a casualty of that perfect storm to some extent.”
The study suggests that different disciplines should develop different policies about AI use, and different ways of assessing students. Chirkov explained that when students don’t have equal access to AI tools, it may become a disadvantage for their careers. But students also need to be careful about relying too much on AI instead of developing their own skills, Chirikov warns.
One response that is gaining traction right now is to move all assessments into controlled environments. For example, proctored oral exams or hand-written in-class exams.
The problem is that those types of assessments only cover a narrow group of skills that can be tested in a time-controlled environment. Universities, and especially research universities, teach students a much broader set of skills. And some of those skills require prolonged engagement with material.
One of the issues that faculty are running into is that it’s not easy to detect GenAI. “Sometimes you think student work is by AI, but it may not be. And even if you detect AI use, you may spend a lot of time trying to prove that compared to plagiarism cases, where there’s evidence that is easier to collect.”
University Responses
AI detection software is evolving, so there are newer detectors that are able to find AI-generated text better, but it’s a cat-and-mouse game, because at the same time, there are AI humanizers, services that allow you to make your text or code look human-written. So, it will be a never-ending battle.
Chirikov believes that one solution is to ban AI throughout. “This is not a productive solution. Students will continue using AI. Some use it in their courses to learn better, to explain material and to ask questions that they would not be comfortable asking their faculty.”
He went on, “it’s challenging for universities to stay away from that wave of AI adoption, and they need to teach students to use AI. But what responsible AI use looks like is different in different fields — writing, coding, problem-solving, lab work and creative work all raise different questions. For that reason, a blanket ban probably wouldn’t work.”
A lot of employers are interested in graduates who have experience working with AI tools. Students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds may get an advantage that doesn’t translate into skills, but rather about the ability to pay for those tools. “That’s a very important component of this study. Using AI in your learning can do a trick on you, Chirkov stated. You may produce something polished for class, and may even get a good grade, but not develop the skill the assignment was meant to build.”
There are some experimental studies that show that people learn much worse with AI and don’t develop durable skills compared to learning without AI. A lot of students may just be very misinformed in terms of how good or bad they are in certain areas, and they may underinvest in some foundational skills.
The future of AI in the workplace is unknown. What’s important is to determine how AI is impacting students’ education. Chirikov provides sound advice when he says: “I encourage students to pause and ask themselves when using AI, “Could I explain this without the tool? Could I do a similar task on my own tomorrow? Did AI help me understand the material better, or did it mainly help me finish faster?” Those simple questions can help students track whether AI is supporting their learning or replacing it.
Gen Z Job Opportunities in the Era of AI
It seems clear that a lot of students in the graduating classes of 2026 didn’t want to hear about AI given that the job market for new grads was tough and many likely believe that AI is at least one factor. Still, it is a technology that affects workplace decision-making—and growing by leaps and bounds—and there’s nothing to do but learn to work with. Students need to learn how to embrace the benefits of using AI and deal with possible negative consequences of its application in the workplace.
Gen Z’s distaste for AI can be seen in new research from “GoTo”, which specializes in cloud-based business communication, IT management, and remote support software. Gen Z workers, more than other generations, largely feel that AI is making them dumber. Close to half (46 percent) of Gen Zeers felt this way, compared with 39 percent of workers overall. This seems unsupportable, and it’s worth mentioning that students still need critical thinking skills to apply AI when ethical dilemmas exist.
Ethics in the Workplace
Michael Impink, instructor of AI Ethics in Business at Harvard DCE’s Professional and Executive Development division, suggests that executives and business leaders can meet the challenges of ethics in the workplace. “For leaders, awareness is the number one step,” Impink says. “Once leaders know where ethical AI issues might exist, they can begin to generate solutions. AI is idiosyncratic to what you want it to do, so there’s no one-size-fits-all approach,” he adds. “Understanding the main ethical challenges AI presents — and creatively generating solutions — is mandatory for the leaders of tomorrow.”
A study by Genesys found that more than one-half of those surveyed say their companies do not currently have a written policy on the ethical use of AI, although 21 percent expressed a definite concern that their companies could use AI in an ethical manner. The survey included 1,103 employers and 4,207 employees regarding the current and future effects of AI on their workplaces. The 5,310 participants were drawn from six countries: the U.S., Germany, the U.K., Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Additional results include:
- 28 percent of employers are apprehensive that their companies could face future liability for an unforeseen use of AI.
- 23 percent say there is currently a written corporate policy on the ethical use of AI.
- 40 percent of employers without a written AI ethics policy believe their companies should have one.
- 54 percent of employees believe their companies should have one.
Trust is the Basis for Relying on AI
Genesys reports that more than 90% of leaders surveyed agree that strong governance is critical to: protect brand reputation (91%), build long-term trust and loyalty with customers (91%), and increase consumer comfort with autonomous systems (90%). Yet many organizations are still unprepared. Over one-third of leaders (35%) admit they have little to no formal governance policies in place. Even more concerning, 28% of those without any policy at all still believe their organizations are ready to deploy agentic AI.
The ethical use of AI should be addressed by all organizations to build trust into the system and satisfy the needs of stakeholders for accurate and reliable information. Businesses have a responsibility to inform employees of the ethical issues and how they will be dealt with, including workforce challenges. Most important, top management should assuage the fears students and employees have about their job security. This is essential if AI is to flourish, as it must, to embrace the technological changes they are, for sure, only going to be more pronounced in the future.
Blog posted on August 11, 2026 by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. You can communicate with Steve at: smintz@calpoly.edu. Visit Steve’s website and learn more about his activities.