When AI completes the assignments, who does the learning?

29.10.2026

AI can complete assignments and write and grade academic papers. Should AI be banned from higher education? In an Oxford-style debate at Johannes Kepler University Linz, BilAI members Erich Kobler and Anamaria-Roberta Hartl took opposing sides.

“If you outsource the struggles, you also outsource the education.” With this warning, Erich Kobler highlighted a central concern: if AI does the thinking, learning itself could suffer. Anamaria-Roberta Hartl countered: “The future doesn’t need a university that is kept away from AI, it needs a university that understands it better than anyone.”

Kobler and Hartl, Assistant Professor and PhD student at JKU’s Institute for Machine Learning, respectively, are usually on the same team. Both are members of the FWF Cluster of Excellence Bilateral AI, which aims to combine data-driven learning with logical reasoning. At the debate on 22 October at the Zirkus des Wissens, however, they found themselves on opposing sides. The motion was deliberately uncompromising: “This House believes that AI should never be used within higher education.” The speakers were assigned their sides for the debate, rather than asked to represent their personal views. 

Common concerns, opposing conclusions

Each speaker had five minutes to argue their side of the motion. Both the proposition and the opposition voiced concerns about the risks of AI in higher education and showed a surprising degree of common ground. Also, each side recognised curiosity as an essential element of the learning process. Their views on what universities should do, however, diverged considerably.

Kobler reminded the audience that degrees constitute a promise to society that graduates can carry out certain tasks themselves. Outsourcing the work needed to develop these abilities to AI, he argued, puts that promise at risk.
On the other hand, Hartl suggested a different approach to assessment: grading the process rather than the outcome. Her response to the risks of AI was not to exclude it, but to change how universities assess students’ work.

Preparing students for a world with AI

Bram van Haver, Lead Project Officer at UNESCO’s Youth for Peace initiative, also opposed the ban. He urged universities to prepare students for a world in which AI plays a significant role. “A human-centred and evidence-based approach is more demanding than a ban but it is also more consistent with the responsibilities of higher education,” he argued and also pointed out that a ban within universities would not prevent the further development of AI outside them. 
Tamas Klement, a Data Science and Society student at Central European University (CEU), highlighted another practical challenge: enforcement would be hampered by the lack of reliable AI detectors.

Why reading is more than gathering information

The proposition, in turn, focused on the implications for the humanities and social sciences. Tim Crane, Professor of Philosophy at CEU and Research Director at Knowledge in Crisis, warned against replacing the reading of texts with AI-generated summaries. This would endanger not just a way of working, but the very essence of these disciplines.
“Reading is the process of understanding the ideas themselves. Without reading, there is no understanding and without understanding, there is no education,” Crane argued.
CEU philosophy student Sarah Hinteregger offered an even starker warning: universities could become “ghost towns” if students and staff increasingly delegate their work to AI.

The motion falls

In the end, the audience was not convinced by the arguments for a total ban. The vast majority of listeners voted against the motion. “The motion falls,” moderator Sophia Marinov from Young AI Leaders Austria announced, before opening the floor to questions from the audience.
The verdict was clear. At the same time, the debate showed that rejecting a ban does not mean endorsing unrestricted AI use. The opposition, too, called on universities to take responsibility for preserving independent learning and adapting their approach to AI accordingly.
 

The event was initiated by Young AI Leaders Linz and co-hosted by the FWF Cluster of Excellence Knowledge in Crisis, in cooperation with BilAI and Toastmasters Linz. The collaboration between the two clusters highlighted the value of bringing AI research into dialogue with philosophical perspectives on knowledge and understanding – a connection at the heart of the debate on AI in higher education.

The Debate on Video: Watch the full debate here and find out how the audience ultimately voted!