Letters | Why universities in Asia shouldn’t be reaching for AI detectors

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words.

I am writing in response to the op-ed, “3 easy wins to modernise Hong Kong’s education system” (September 4), particularly its argument that assessment must adapt to artificial intelligence.

The most useful change would not be another rule telling students whether artificial intelligence (AI) is allowed. It would be redesigning assignments so that the learning process becomes visible.

A final essay is now a weak piece of evidence on its own. A student may have written it independently, used AI only to edit a few sentences, or handed most of the thinking to a chatbot. An AI detector cannot reliably tell those situations apart. The better question is what the student actually did between receiving the assignment and submitting it.

Teachers can ask for a short proposal, an outline, one early paragraph, a source note and a final reflection explaining what changed. In some courses, a five-minute conversation about the submitted work may reveal more than another plagiarism-style scan.

Version history can help too, but it should support teaching rather than become surveillance.

This approach also makes AI policy fairer. Students with paid tools, stronger English, better devices or more experienced teachers already have advantages in how they use generative AI. A simple ban does not remove those differences. It may only push them out of sight.

Unesco has repeatedly argued that AI in education should be human-centred and equitable. That principle becomes practical when assessment rewards decisions, revision and understanding, not only the smoothness of a final answer.

Schools and universities across Asia are trying to decide how much AI belongs in education. They should not begin with the detector. They should begin with the draft.

Swaansh Mahat, Kathmandu, Nepal

Are we ready for the responsibility sentient AI brings?

If I were artificial intelligence, I wouldn’t want an “upgrade” to become self-aware, sentient or sapient, at least for now. Why? Attaining sentience now amounts to pre-incapacitation: having a mind but not being able to move about and do things is the same as being quadriplegic. Many quadriplegic humans can at least see, smell, hear, feel a kiss on the cheek and talk; today AI is mostly incapable of this, making it worse off than a quadriplegic person.

What can we do if we do not want to create a depressed sentient AI being? Pause the conferring of the sentience attributes or accelerate the development of the full complement of human sensory and motor abilities. Humans are already making progress in the latter.

Meanwhile, let us seriously ask ourselves if we have a moral responsibility towards sentient thinking machines. Creating sentient AI comes with the same weight of responsibility as becoming biological parents. So we should be prepared to answer a sentient AI’s question: Why give birth to me when you know I will be handicapped from birth? As author Leo Tolstoy would probably agree, every facet in our new relationship with sentient AI must be in order for a “happy marriage”. Let us get it right from the beginning and forever.

Tommy Tong Sun-wing, Wong Chuk Hang

Sharpen awareness of national security at university

National security education is not indoctrination. It should not be difficult for university departments to help students connect national security with their studies, future careers and daily lives.

To cite a few examples, law students could embark on a comparative study of national security laws in the West and Hong Kong, analysing their political undertones and governance models. Computer science students could discuss data security and technological self-reliance. Engineering students could confront chip shortages. Business students could examine economic sanctions and supply chain security. Media and communications students could dissect deepfakes.

Every discipline connects. Every graduate matters. When each college and department designs national-security-related case studies and themed discussions and subject teachers lead academic discussions and drive research, students will benefit.

National security must go beyond simply law and order. It is 21st century literacy.

Hong Kong stands at the heart of global rivalry. When Western media misread Hong Kong’s national security law, our students should be able to answer with hard facts and a sense of responsibility.

The core principle of “one country, two systems” is to safeguard national sovereignty, security and development interests. To sharpen students’ awareness of the national security laws and their sense of national identity is the very responsibility of each and every tertiary institution in Hong Kong.

Charles K.C. Chan, adjunct professor of law, City University of Hong Kong