Was this forwarded to you by a friend? Sign up, and get your own copy of the news that matters sent to your inbox every week. Sign up for the On EdTech newsletter. Interested in additional analysis? Upgrade to the On EdTech+ newsletter.

In late May, Futurism ran a story declaring that California State University's deal to put ChatGPT in front of half a million students had been "a disaster." Its evidence was a familiar bundle of studies tying AI use to weaker critical thinking, memory loss, and diminished brain activity, one of which the article itself conceded had been retracted. This is the house style of a certain kind of AI coverage, where the conclusion arrives ahead of the data and every finding is bent to fit it.

That style is easy to wave off, but that would be a mistake. The flawed reporting makes the resistance it describes look flimsy by association, when the resistance is nothing of the sort. The same CSU survey report that Futurism used as a peg was the largest survey of AI perception in higher education to date — more than 94,000 students, faculty, and staff — and the picture it paints is far more interesting than a disaster.

Cal State's students use AI heavily and distrust it at the same time. Roughly 84% reported using ChatGPT, yet 65% doubted AI was benefiting education, and 80% said they would not be comfortable turning in AI-generated work as their own.