纽约—— 多年来，大学教授和管理人员一直严厉惩处那些利用人工智能作弊的学生。如今，这些教授和管理人员自己也陷入了麻烦。
‘Hypocrisy’: US students are calling out college leaders for using AI Mark Arsenault and Alan Blinder NEW YORK - College professors and administrators have been busting students for cheating with artificial intelligence for several years. Now, the professors and administrators are getting in trouble, too.
上周，新罕布什尔州的达特茅斯学院宣布将对该校教务长圣地亚哥·施内尔（Santiago Schnell）展开调查。该校的学生刊物发现，施内尔发表的一些文章实际上是由人工智能生成的。
Dartmouth College in New Hampshire last week announced it was investigating its provost, Santiago Schnell, after the college’s student-run newspaper found that some of his published writing appeared written by AI.
施内尔是一位数学生物学家，也是越来越多被指控滥用人工智能的大学教授和管理人员中的代表人物。他的许多观点文章、研究论文，甚至发给学生的校园通知中都明显存在人工智能的痕迹。他已发表声明道歉。
Schnell, a mathematical biologist, is perhaps the most prominent in a growing cast of college professors and administrators who have been accused of using AI in a way that crosses ethical lines. There have been instances of opinion articles, research papers and even campuswide messages to students showing traces of AI influence. He issued a statement apologising.
当学生为了节省时间或逃避思考的麻烦而将写作任务外包给人工智能程序时，学校管理人员通常会采取惩罚措施。
Administrators wring their hands, and sometime issue punishments, when students outsource writing assignments to a robot to save time or avoid the hard work of thinking.
一些学生认为，这些教授的行为极其虚伪：“这种行为完全违背了我们学校的价值观以及学术界的根本原则。”达特茅斯学院的大四学生埃利·莫伊斯（Eli Moyse）在接受采访时说道。
Some students are calling out the examples of faculty doing the same thing as hypocritical. “It just goes against all the values of our institution and the concept of academia,” Eli Moyse, a Dartmouth senior, said in an interview.
乔治华盛顿大学的一个工作组在8月份发布的报告中指出，许多学生表示怀疑教师们在使用人工智能时是否做到了道德和透明。
A working group at George Washington University said in a report in August that many students reported “doubts that faculty themselves are using AI ethically and transparently”.
在罗德岛州的布朗大学，一项调查显示，近三分之二的本科生对教师依赖人工智能来制作课程讲义和其他教学材料的行为感到担忧。
And at Brown University in Rhode Island, a survey found that close to two-thirds of undergraduate students who responded had some worries about faculty members relying on AI to develop course lectures and other content.
在达特茅斯学院，新闻网站Semafor于8月份曾报道过施内尔在公开写作中滥用人工智能的问题；该报道指出，一些知名出版物的观点版块中出现了由人工智能生成的文章。
At Dartmouth, Schnell’s AI use in public writing came up in an investigation in August by news site Semafor about AI-created writing appearing in the opinion pages of major publications.
该项调查称，《华盛顿邮报》8月9日刊登的施内尔评论文章由人工智能撰写。这篇评论文章讨论了利用人工智能在学校作弊的问题。
That investigation said an Aug 9 commentary by Schnell in The Washington Post was written by AI. The opinion article was about AI cheating in school.
Semafor的调查还发现，《纽约时报》的一些评论文章有使用人工智能写作的迹象。
The Semafor investigation also found indications of AI writing in New York Times opinion articles.
学生报纸《达特茅斯报》9月开展的后续调查发现，施内尔在2026年发表的大量作品广泛使用了人工智能。
The follow-up investigation in September by the student publication, The Dartmouth, found extensive AI use in Schnell’s published work in 2026.
施内尔在一份声明中告诉《达特茅斯报》，他使用人工智能“润色语言、编辑文本、提高表达的清晰度和组织性，并使写作过程更加高效”。
Schnell told The Dartmouth in a statement that he used AI “for language refinement, copyediting, improving clarity and organisation and making writing processes more efficient”.
该报随后使用人工智能检测器检测了施内尔关于使用人工智能的声明，结果显示，这份声明本身似乎也是由人工智能撰写的。施内尔没有回应置评请求。
The newspaper then ran Schnell’s statement on his AI use through an AI detector, which flagged the statement itself as apparently written by AI. Schnell did not respond to a request for comment.
达特茅斯学院院长西恩·贝洛克在发给校内的一份通知中宣布了对施内尔的审查，并称，在人工智能领域先行探索“难免会一片混乱”。贝洛克 recently 曾呼吁该校扩大人工智能的使用。
In a note to her campus announcing the review of Schnell, Dartmouth’s president, Sian Beilock, said that being an early leader on AI was “messy”. Beilock recently called for more AI use at her university.
她写道：“过程中难免会走弯路，而这也是一个机构学习成长的一部分。”除贝洛克已经公开的内容外，达特茅斯学院拒绝进一步置评。
“There will be mis-steps,” she wrote, “and that’s part of how an institution learns”. Dartmouth declined to comment beyond what Beilock had already written.
莫伊塞表示，这起人工智能丑闻还应当产生后果，并称其虚伪表现“完全像卡通一样荒诞”。
There should also be consequences, said Moyse, who called the AI scandal a “completely cartoonish” display of hypocrisy.
他谈及施内尔说：“他应该立即辞职，否则就应被解雇。把并非自己创作的东西冒充自己的成果，就是剽窃，即使它是机器人写的也一样。”在9月25日刊登于《达特茅斯报》的一封信中，校务长为自己没有始终公开披露在公开写作中使用人工智能一事道歉。
“He should resign immediately or get fired,” he said of Schnell. “Passing something off as your work when it isn’t your work is just plagiarism, even if it’s written by a robot.”In a letter published on Sept 25 in The Dartmouth, the provost apologised for not always disclosing AI use in his public writing.
施内尔写道：“无需多说，我比以往任何时候都更加意识到，有必要就人工智能在高等教育领域的适当使用开展扎实、充分的学术讨论。”
“Suffice it to say, I am more aware than ever of the need for robust intellectual discussions about the appropriate use of AI in the higher education landscape,” Schnell wrote.
大学员工使用人工智能的范围尚不完全清楚，但最全面的调查之一——由埃隆大学和美国学院与大学协会于2025年秋季进行——发现，在全国1057名受访教职员工中，约四分之一没有使用生成式人工智能工具。
The scope of AI use by university employees is not entirely clear, but one of the most comprehensive surveys, conducted in the autumn of 2025 by Elon University and the American Association of Colleges and Universities, found that about a quarter of the 1,057 faculty members from across the country who responded were not using generative AI tools.
与此同时，民调显示美国大学生在课业中严重依赖人工智能。超过一半的人表示他们至少每周使用一次，五分之一的人表示他们每天都使用。
Meanwhile, polling suggests US college students lean heavily on AI in their coursework. More than half say they use it at least weekly, and one in 5 say they use it every day.
根据埃隆大学的调查，在教职员工中，近九成表示他们没有使用人工智能进行评分。
Among faculty, nearly nine in 10 said they were not using AI for grading, according to the Elon survey.
只有6%的人表示他们在准备自己的研究论文时“大量”使用人工智能。
And just 6% said they used AI “a lot” when preparing their own research papers.
不过，近一半的人表示，他们在创建或修改“传统作业”时至少在一定程度上借助了人工智能。
Close to half, though, said they turned to AI at least somewhat as they created or changed “traditional assignments”.
在加州大学伯克利分校，学生经营的报纸《每日加州人》将数十份校园通讯通过人工智能检测器进行检测，发现一些来自高层管理人员的信件显然是由人工智能撰写或修改的。
At the University of California, Berkeley, the student-run paper, The Daily Californian, ran dozens of campus communications through AI detectors and found that some missives from top administrators were apparently written or altered by AI.
伯克利发言人丹·莫古洛夫在一封电子邮件中表示，大学领导者和传播人员在一定准则范围内将人工智能作为一种工具使用，“只要最终产品准确而真实地捕捉并表达了作者的思想、观点、语气和目标”。
Dan Mogulof, a spokesperson for Berkeley, said in an e-mail that university leaders and communicators were using AI as a tool within certain guidelines and “so long as the final product accurately and authentically captures and expresses the author’s thoughts, perspectives, tone and objectives”.
他补充说：“我们发现，如果不对人工智能代理最初生成的任何内容进行大量修订、编辑和/或润色，这是不可能实现的。”学生记者还测试了伯克利数学教授兹韦兹德利娜·斯坦科娃在《旧金山标准报》上发表的一篇长文。该报写道，人工智能检测器Pangram将该文章标记为“33%由人工智能生成或人工智能辅助写作”。
He added: “We have found that not to be possible without extensive revision, editing and/or embellishment of whatever an AI agent might initially produce.”Student journalists also tested a long essay published by Berkeley math professor Zvezdelina Stankova in The San Francisco Standard. AI detector Pangram flagged the essay as “33% AI-generated or AI-assisted writing”, the paper wrote.
斯坦科娃拒绝置评，但她告诉学生报纸，她曾使用人工智能进行编辑，但这篇关于许多伯克利新生数学能力不稳定的文章是“大量人工工作和深思熟虑”的成果。一些学校针对员工使用人工智能制定了具体政策。
Stankova, who declined to comment, told the student paper that she had used AI for editing, but the essay, about the shaky math skills of many new Berkeley students, was the result of “intensive human work and deliberation”. Some schools have specific policies on AI use among employees.
例如，南加州大学规定，教职员工不得使用人工智能在招生和纪律处分等事项上“独立做出最终决定”。
At the University of Southern California, for instance, faculty and staff members cannot use AI to “independently make final decisions” about matters like admissions and discipline.
南加州大学还表示，使用人工智能的方式不得违反学校的其他任何政策。
And USC says that artificial intelligence cannot be used in a way that defies any other university policy.
尽管如此，南加州大学一套针对人工智能的教师指导方针指出了许多教授所面临的平衡难题：“你可以用生成式人工智能工具做什么，与你应该做什么，这两者之间是有区别的。”指导方针称，无论教授们做出什么决定，“要求学生披露人工智能使用情况的教职员工，通常也应以同样的标准要求自己”。
Still, a set of faculty guidelines for artificial intelligence at USC suggest the balancing act facing many professors: “There is a difference between what you can do with generative AI tools and what you should do.”Whatever professors decide, the guidelines say, “faculty who require AI disclosure from students should generally hold themselves to the same standard”.
即使机构制定了人工智能政策，它们也像大多数地方的规则一样，并不总是得到遵守。例如，斯坦福大学就有一项详细的人工智能政策。
Even when institutions have AI policies in place, they – like most rules anywhere – are not always followed. Stanford University has a detailed AI policy, for example.
但最近，该大学利用人工智能从一张照片中移走了一名西班牙裔男子，换成了一名黑人女性，并修改了同一张照片中另外两名学生的外貌。在这些修改被发现后，校方承认违反了相关政策。
But recently, the university used AI to remove a Hispanic man from a photograph, replacing him with a black woman, and to alter the appearances of two other students in the same image. After the changes were discovered, the university acknowledged there had been a policy violation.
专家表示，这些争议，以及对于如何应对或是否应对此做出回应的不确定性，都可以追溯到这项技术在校园内的演变速度之快。
Experts say the controversies – and the uncertainty over how or whether to respond – can be traced to how quickly the technology is evolving on campuses.
长期以来，道德标准一直规范着剽窃和其他形式的学术不端行为，但即使是书面指导方针也并不总是能明确地跟上人工智能的发展步伐，这使得正常的界限变得模糊不清。
Ethical standards have long governed matters like plagiarism and other forms of academic misconduct, but even written guidelines have not always explicitly kept pace with AI, leaving the normal boundaries murky.
“最重要的问题是，目前还没有社会契约，”密西西比大学密西西比人工智能教师研究所创始人马克·沃特金斯（Marc Watkins）说。“我们没有这类先例来界定什么是合适的，什么是不合适的。”
“The big thing is there’s no social contract right now,” said Marc Watkins, who founded the Mississippi AI Institute for Teachers at the University of Mississippi. “We don’t have these sorts of priors to say what’s appropriate and what’s not.”NYTIMES