How Logical Fallacies Are Skewing the AI-in-Education Debate

Bias Fundamentals in Artificial Intelligence

What Pro-AI Educators May Overlook About Education

Dichotomous thinking and false equivalences often skew the conversation about AI in education. While AI tools like ChatGPT offer new opportunities, their impact on teaching and assessment raises significant concerns.

Key Points

• Banning AI use in student work complicates teachers' efforts to maintain academic integrity.
• Pro-AI arguments sometimes rely on oversimplified or misleading claims.
• The widespread availability of AI challenges the fairness and reliability of take-home and online graded assignments.

Teachers face growing challenges as AI tools become common. Reports reveal a surge in cheating facilitated by AI, adding strain without additional support for educators. The debate is often framed as strictly pro- or anti-AI, but reality is more nuanced. Notably, some pro-AI advocates use rhetoric that leans on logical fallacies, which can obscure the full picture without invalidating their overall stance.

False Dichotomies

One common argument against banning AI is that cheating can't be fully stopped, so banning AI is pointless. This is an all-or-nothing fallacy. The aim is to reduce cheating, not eliminate it entirely. Similar false dichotomies appear in statements like “AI is either an opportunity or a threat” or “we must either lean in or run away.” These ignore the complex reality that AI’s effects can be mixed—both helpful and harmful, depending on context.

Straw Man Fallacy

Opponents of AI are sometimes misrepresented as wanting to stop all cheating or as fearing AI will destroy education entirely. This exaggeration makes their position easier to attack but simplifies their real concerns. For example, a recent MIT study indicated measurable cognitive effects from AI use, yet media headlines turned this into claims that AI “rots your brain.” Such distortion distracts from honest discussion and understanding.

Is-Ought Fallacy

Arguments that AI must be accepted simply because it exists fall into the is-ought fallacy. Just because AI is here doesn’t mean educators must fully embrace it without question. History shows many examples where existing conditions were challenged and changed for improvement, such as efforts to overcome social inequalities or fight diseases.

False Equivalences

Comparing AI to calculators in education is misleading. Calculators assist with computation but don’t replace conceptual understanding, while AI can generate answers that bypass learning fundamentals. Similarly, professors using AI themselves but banning students from doing so is not necessarily hypocrisy—different roles and stakes are involved.

Education Requires Fair Assessment

While AI can support learning, education also requires accurate assessment of students' knowledge and skills. Ensuring fairness means preventing any student from having an unfair advantage. In unproctored settings, easy AI access undermines reliable evaluation. This challenge may be underappreciated due to cognitive biases like normalcy bias, where those closest to a problem underestimate its severity.

In Summary

Both pro- and anti-AI educators sometimes use flawed reasoning. Many who support AI genuinely care about fair assessment and learning outcomes. However, black-and-white arguments or exaggerations from AI advocates can mask the complexity of challenges faced by teachers. Moving forward, fully proctored assessments might be the only reliable way to maintain academic integrity.

References

• Goodier, M. (2025). Thousands of UK University Students Caught Cheating Using AI. The Guardian.
• Roose, K. (2023). Don’t Ban ChatGPT in Schools. Teach With It. New York Times.
• Kosmyna, N. (2025). Your Brain on ChatGPT. MIT Media Lab.
• Kovanovic, V. & Marrone, R. (2025). MIT Researchers Say Using ChatGPT Can Rot Your Brain. The Conversation.
• Explore AI courses relevant for educators