I get emails. Sometimes they find me well; sometimes they try to convince me that I need to bring artificial intelligence (“AI”) into the classroom. “AI is going to revolutionize higher education!” “Prepare your students for the AI-driven job market!” “Resistance is futile!” “Sign up for our workshop!”

Despite being bombarded with such messages hyping “AI” (around which I will keep using scare quotes), it remains unclear to me that there is much to gain from bringing “AI” into my Political Science classrooms. (Are there worthwhile uses of “AI” elsewhere in higher ed? Maybe, but I’m concerned with my own classes here.)

In a recent Substack post on classroom technology—the post that prompted this one—Paul Musgrave asks of computers, “Have they delivered on the gleaming promises that forward-looking teachers and officials subscribed to in the 1980s?” He answers, “No, absolutely not, and they’re probably mostly a disaster. We’d likely be better off without them most of the time.”

Musgrave’s post is in part about the frustrations one encounters when using a learning management system (LMS) like Canvas or Blackboard, but it is also a suggestion that anyone promoting the use of “AI” in the classroom should calibrate their enthusiasm.

Indeed, despite all those emails telling me that I need to bring “AI” into the classroom, “AI” on college campuses remains primarily a cheating machine. So, where are all those emails coming from? Who wants me to bring “AI” into the classroom? Here I answer those questions with a sparse typology:

The Vendor

People selling “AI” have obvious reasons to want “AI” in my classroom. They would ideally like institutions to purchase expensive subscriptions to their services.

The Influencer

Here I have in mind anyone whose day job is not selling “AI” but who is happy to tell me how to bring “AI” into the classroom through their consulting services or in online workshops. These workshops are frequently sponsored by The Vendor.

The Administrator

A recent AAUP report notes that administrators make most campus-wide decisions regarding educational technology and calls for greater faculty involvement in such decision-making. Meanwhile, The Vendor promises “efficiency,” which understandably appeals to The Administrator. The Vendor might also appeal to The Administrator’s interest in graduate placement rates—after all, 82% of employers say they want prospective applicants to have “AI” skills. (This is a made-up statistic. The Vendor does indeed tout such claims, but the underlying data is always rather opaque for some reason.)

The True Believer

There are surely some people out there who truly believe that I could improve my Political Science classes with a thorough integration of “AI”. The problem is telling who’s a True Believer and who’s just pushing a pecuniary or parochial interest.

Notably, my students are not reflected above—they aren’t clamoring for me to bring “AI” into the classroom. Perhaps student demand isn’t the best indicator of whether something belongs in the classroom; perhaps things are different in other fields; perhaps I just haven’t experimented enough with “AI” to see how useful it can be.

Still, I don’t see a pressing need to bring “AI” into my Political Science classes. Feel free to tell me why I’m wrong in the comments.