Fei-Fei Li Warns AI's Biggest Risk in Schools Isn't Cheating—It's Eroding Student Motivation

The "Godmother of AI" says the biggest AI risk in schools isn't cheating - it's students losing the desire to learn

Serving tech enthusiasts for over 25 years. TechSpot means tech analysis and advice you can trust. Winners & losers: The problem of students using AI to cheat in schools is well documented, but Fei-Fei Li, aka The Godmother of AI, thinks there's a bigger risk. The Stanford computer science professor believes access to the technology will take away students' motivation and agency to learn. Nevertheless, Li doesn't believe a blanket ban is a good idea. Speaking on an episode of the science podcast Huberman Lab this week, Li talked about the fears around how students are using AI. "The absolute bad outcome is that our young generation, their agency and human-level motivation of learning and living is taken away by tools," the ImageNet inventor warned. "It should not be taken away by humans nor should it be taken away by machines." If we see a generation of graduates who have completely relied on AI without actively trying to learn anything for themselves, they risk leaving education without having "properly developed the brain," Li said. When it comes to AI use in schools, most of the focus has been on cheating. It's been an issue since ChatGPT went mainstream, and it reached endemic proportions back in August 2024 - though one professor recently found a clever way to identify students who were using it. There's been less conversation about how AI can cause many students to lose both the motivation and ability to learn. Many kids wonder why they should bother learning something when AI can provide the answer instantly. Researchers have found that AI is making students faster but they're losing their depth of thinking, which makes sense. Vivienne Ming, chief scientist at the Possibility Institute, told Business Insider earlier this year that most of the AI users she studied were using the technology to avoid thinking for themselves. Li certainly isn't advocating for a complete ban on students using AI. She believes it can genuinely help struggling students who are already engaged in their learning. Li herself noted how she struggled with organic chemistry as a premed student, when teaching assistants and professors didn't have enough time to answer every question. While there's no obvious solution, Li says we need to find a way to keep children and students' motivation and agency. "Let's find a way to give them the access and the right way of using these tools," she said. Li added that if AI is used properly in education, it could make the students of the future "way smarter than us because they are superpowered." There have been several attempts to find this balance. OpenAI introduced a study mode designed to encourage critical thinking rather than simply handing over answers, while some computer science professors have shifted their focus from coding syntax to higher-level problem-solving. The UK government has also backed the use of ChatGPT for homework, arguing that it could be especially useful for children who struggle in traditional learning environments.

Fei-Fei Li says AI's real school risk is lost motivation

Fei-Fei Li says the worst outcome of AI in schools is not cheating but students losing agency and motivation. Warns equally against banning the tools. Says AI works best once a student is already engaged and stuck. Spoke on the Huberman Lab podcast, released Monday. Fei-Fei Li thinks schools are worrying about the wrong thing. The danger of AI in classrooms is not that students will use it to cheat, she argues, but that it will strip away their reason to learn at all. She made the case on the science podcast Huberman Lab, in an episode released on Monday. "The absolute bad outcome is that our young generation, their agency and human-level motivation of learning and living is taken away by tools," said Li, the Stanford computer science professor widely known as the godmother of AI. "It should not be taken away by humans nor should it be taken away by machines." Used badly, she said, the tools could leave a generation that has not "properly developed the brain." She is just as wary of the opposite reaction. "Both things worry me," she said. "Either denying the tool or taking away agency and motivation." The evidence underneath the debate is still forming. A report from Oxford University Press last year found students gaining speed while losing depth of thinking. MIT researcher Nataliya Kosmyna separately found that people given generative AI for essay writing performed worse over time than those who used Google or no aid at all. That second finding is contested. In December, four researchers published a formal comment on Kosmyna's study, questioning its sample size, its EEG analysis, its reporting consistency and its transparency. They praised the underlying dataset but argued the results could be read more conservatively. Vivienne Ming, chief scientist at the Possibility Institute, told Business Insider earlier this year that most AI users she studied were reaching for it to think less. It is the same pattern Wharton researchers have labelled cognitive surrender, and it turns up in workplaces too, where research suggests juniors never learn to debug. Li's alternative sits between banning the tools and handing them over. She recalled struggling with organic chemistry as a premed student, when teaching assistant hours were limited and professors had only so much time for questions. With a chatbot, she said, she would have asked far more. "I know where I'm stuck," Li said. "I have the motivation to learn. I just need guidance." That distinction should shape how schools approach the technology, she argued, treating it as a way to go deeper rather than a cheating risk to police. "Let's find a way to keep our children and students' motivation and agency," she said. Done well, she added, it could make future students "way smarter than us because they are superpowered."