Lumping Chegg, OpenAI, and Grammarly together as “cheating providers” is absurd. We have real, foundational conversations to tackle about education—conversations we probably should have had twenty years ago—but this kind of bluster is just as empty as the hype coming from AI companies themselves.
To me, being a "cheating provider" is a simple, three-part test. A company or person is a cheating provider if:
1) Their products or services are used by students to cheat, to sidestep learning and obtain grades or credit based on work that does not represent their honest effort. If students use a company's products to cheat, in other words.
2) The company knows this. They are aware that their products and services are being used to cheat.
3) The company could take steps to stop, or at least limit, the use of its products for cheating, but does not.
If a company meets all three, they are knowingly selling or providing cheating services, allowing students to cheat, enabling the misconduct -- usually, for money. That makes them a cheating provider.
Chegg, Grammarly, and OpenAI meet all three elements. Their products are used to cheat, they know it, they decline to stop it.
So—where is the line? And what counts as “cheating”?
Let’s unpack that:
1. Is using a spell checker or grammar tool cheating? Not talking about Grammarly here—think back to the old-school tools built into Word or even WordPerfect.
2. If we say AI tools are cheating, how do we justify search engines like Google? They answer questions, offer suggestions, and help us find quick solutions—just like some AI tools do.
3. Do we factor in whether a tool is considered legitimate outside the classroom? If it’s widely accepted in the real world, should that change how we think about it in school?
I’ll be the first to say—yes, we’re in the middle of an academic honesty crisis. But I also think it’s complicated. If we want to get this right, we need better ways to talk about it—with students and with each other.
Twenty-five years ago, schools wrestled with whether students should be allowed to use the Internet. Some banned it outright. Others warned it was ethically problematic. Meanwhile, the world was already moving online—and students got mixed messages, which is problematic for moral development.
I say, any tool can be used ethically. But I also think that's really the rare case. Most of what we're talking about is illicit, disapproved use. Cheating. And in the cases of Grammarly, Chegg, and OpenAI -- it's the bulk of their business these days.
And I also say that if someone is using a tool to deceive, to take credit for something that they did not do -- that's wrong.
Lumping Chegg, OpenAI, and Grammarly together as “cheating providers” is absurd. We have real, foundational conversations to tackle about education—conversations we probably should have had twenty years ago—but this kind of bluster is just as empty as the hype coming from AI companies themselves.
Disagree. They're cheating providers. Not too difficult to prove. Thanks for reading.
I'm game to listen... where are you making that connection on your Substack or elsewhere?
Mostly here.
To me, being a "cheating provider" is a simple, three-part test. A company or person is a cheating provider if:
1) Their products or services are used by students to cheat, to sidestep learning and obtain grades or credit based on work that does not represent their honest effort. If students use a company's products to cheat, in other words.
2) The company knows this. They are aware that their products and services are being used to cheat.
3) The company could take steps to stop, or at least limit, the use of its products for cheating, but does not.
If a company meets all three, they are knowingly selling or providing cheating services, allowing students to cheat, enabling the misconduct -- usually, for money. That makes them a cheating provider.
Chegg, Grammarly, and OpenAI meet all three elements. Their products are used to cheat, they know it, they decline to stop it.
Thanks for engaging.
So—where is the line? And what counts as “cheating”?
Let’s unpack that:
1. Is using a spell checker or grammar tool cheating? Not talking about Grammarly here—think back to the old-school tools built into Word or even WordPerfect.
2. If we say AI tools are cheating, how do we justify search engines like Google? They answer questions, offer suggestions, and help us find quick solutions—just like some AI tools do.
3. Do we factor in whether a tool is considered legitimate outside the classroom? If it’s widely accepted in the real world, should that change how we think about it in school?
I’ll be the first to say—yes, we’re in the middle of an academic honesty crisis. But I also think it’s complicated. If we want to get this right, we need better ways to talk about it—with students and with each other.
Twenty-five years ago, schools wrestled with whether students should be allowed to use the Internet. Some banned it outright. Others warned it was ethically problematic. Meanwhile, the world was already moving online—and students got mixed messages, which is problematic for moral development.
I say, any tool can be used ethically. But I also think that's really the rare case. Most of what we're talking about is illicit, disapproved use. Cheating. And in the cases of Grammarly, Chegg, and OpenAI -- it's the bulk of their business these days.
And I also say that if someone is using a tool to deceive, to take credit for something that they did not do -- that's wrong.