Have agents complete online coursework for students
Sign up to see the future, today. Task: Sign up to see the future, today Can’t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech With the rise of agentic models, why stop at using chatbots to look up answers? Some students are directing AI agents to “take” entire online courses for them, letting the software run in the background while they focus on better uses of their time, like doomscrolling on their phone or gaming. The New York Times unpacked the trend in a recent story, and it’s a testament to how extreme AI-enabled cheating has become, but also of the perils of getting an education in a virtual environment instead of a physical one. Professors can’t rely on supervised exams and oral presentations in online courses like they’re starting to shift to in-person ones. Since everything is behind the screen, students can ask an AI agent to log into learning platforms like Canvas and Blackboard and complete quizzes for then, watch lecture videos, write papers, and even pose as the student and participate in discussions, a type of assignment in which they’re expected to chat with classmates and sometimes the professor about assigned reading. AI companies are doing little to stop this. The NYT found that none of the three most popular chatbots with students — ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grammarly — would refuse requests to write an entire paper on a student’s behalf. And they also don’t stop their models from logging into platforms like Canvas and Blackboard, and have ignored the request from educators that their models should identify themselves while they’re used on there. The reasoning can sound quite specious. Perplexity, the company behind an AI web browser, told the NYT in a statement that requiring AI agents to identify themselves on learning platforms “would put the student’s privacy and security at risk.” Professors feel powerless to stop the trend. Often, their university may have a partnership or deal with an AI company that provides access to a custom version of its models. This sends a mixed message to students: is AI encouraged, or verboten? Some professors will turn a blind eye AI use, and others will heavily punish it, but as a whole, it’s every instructor for themselves. “Am I just interacting with bots here?” Karen Costa, who’s spent two decades teaching line courses, recalled asking herself, per the NYT. “I’m not getting any guidance on how to dissuade their use,” added Carol Sewell at the California State University system, which signed a multimillion dollar deal with OpenAI last year. “I’m getting opportunities to learn more about using it.” Despite the clear potential for teaching — and negative effects they cause, such as impaired critical thinking and memory loss — many universities are reluctant to proscribe AI entirely. That doesn’t mean some haven’t been trying to find ways around it. The University of Chicago Law School recently banned using phones, tablets, and laptops in class for freshman-level courses, as part of its new “AI strategy.” Princeton University dropped its over century-old Honor Code tradition which let students take their exams without supervision, after an AI cheating scandal rattled the Ivy League institution. More on AI: Homeschool Parents Are Planning Lessons With ChatGPT; tools: custom-built or unnamed agent. Human role: The original post does not say how a person stayed involved.; limitations: Prerequisites include access to LMS credentials and compatible AI agents. Constraints: Universities may ban devices or enforce honor codes (e.g., Princeton, UChicago). Perplexity argues self-identification risks privacy. Integration uncertainty: AI companies do not currently block LMS logins. Human approvals: None specified in the cheating context, but ethical use requires strict oversight..
Tools
custom-built or unnamed agent
Published on Agent Work Atlas:
Overview
Sign up to see the future, today
Workflow
Sign up to see the future, today Can’t-miss innovations from the bleeding edge of science and tech With the rise of agentic models, why stop at using chatbots to look up answers? Some students are directing AI agents to “take” entire online courses for them, letting the software run in the background while they focus on better uses of their time, like doomscrolling on their phone or gaming. The New York Times unpacked the trend in a recent story, and it’s a testament to how extreme AI-enabled cheating has become, but also of the perils of getting an education in a virtual environment instead of a physical one. Professors can’t rely on supervised exams and oral presentations in online courses like they’re starting to shift to in-person ones. Since everything is behind the screen, students can ask an AI agent to log into learning platforms like Canvas and Blackboard and complete quizzes for then, watch lecture videos, write papers, and even pose as the student and participate in discussions, a type of assignment in which they’re expected to chat with classmates and sometimes the professor about assigned reading. AI companies are doing little to stop this. The NYT found that none of the three most popular chatbots with students — ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grammarly — would refuse requests to write an entire paper on a student’s behalf. And they also don’t stop their models from logging into platforms like Canvas and Blackboard, and have ignored the request from educators that their models should identify themselves while they’re used on there. The reasoning can sound quite specious. Perplexity, the company behind an AI web browser, told the NYT in a statement that requiring AI agents to identify themselves on learning platforms “would put the student’s privacy and security at risk.” Professors feel powerless to stop the trend. Often, their university may have a partnership or deal with an AI company that provides access to a custom version of its models. This sends a mixed message to students: is AI encouraged, or verboten? Some professors will turn a blind eye AI use, and others will heavily punish it, but as a whole, it’s every instructor for themselves. “Am I just interacting with bots here?” Karen Costa, who’s spent two decades teaching line courses, recalled asking herself, per the NYT. “I’m not getting any guidance on how to dissuade their use,” added Carol Sewell at the California State University system, which signed a multimillion dollar deal with OpenAI last year. “I’m getting opportunities to learn more about using it.” Despite the clear potential for teaching — and negative effects they cause, such as impaired critical thinking and memory loss — many universities are reluctant to proscribe AI entirely. That doesn’t mean some haven’t been trying to find ways around it. The University of Chicago Law School recently banned using phones, tablets, and laptops in class for freshman-level courses, as part of its new “AI strategy.” Princeton University dropped its over century-old Honor Code tradition which let students take their exams without supervision, after an AI cheating scandal rattled the Ivy League institution. More on AI: Homeschool Parents Are Planning Lessons With ChatGPT
Reported result
The source does not report measured outcomes or success rates for this workflow. It highlights that AI companies like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Grammarly do not refuse such requests, and professors feel powerless to stop the trend due to mixed institutional messages. No specific metrics on academic performance or detection rates are provided.
Human role
The original post does not say how a person stayed involved.
Limitations
Prerequisites include access to LMS credentials and compatible AI agents. Constraints: Universities may ban devices or enforce honor codes (e.g., Princeton, UChicago). Perplexity argues self-identification risks privacy. Integration uncertainty: AI companies do not currently block LMS logins. Human approvals: None specified in the cheating context, but ethical use requires strict oversight.
Try it
I want to test an AI agent's capability to interact with a learning management system for educational purposes, strictly for a controlled, authorized simulation. [replaceable inputs: LMS platform name (e.g., Canvas), course module, specific task (e.g., summarize lecture notes), agent tool name]. Steps: 1. Configure the agent to access the [LMS platform] using provided test credentials. 2. Instruct the agent to retrieve [specific task] data. 3. Have the agent generate a draft response or summary. 4. Stop before submitting any changes. 5. Present the draft to me for review. Output format: A JSON object containing the retrieved data, the agent's draft, and a log of actions taken. Quality measure: Accuracy of retrieved data and relevance of the draft. Error handling: If login fails, report the error code. If the task is ambiguous, ask for clarification. Safeguards: Do not submit, post, or modify any live course data. Do not impersonate a student in discussions. Require my explicit confirmation before any action that writes to the LMS. This is a dry run to assess technical feasibility, not to execute academic dishonesty.
Source reports are not independently verified. Publication date is the catalog publication date, not the original article date.