After Detection Fails

Five Fundamental Challenges That Will Reshape Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

This post follows my standard early access schedule: paid subscribers today, free for everyone on December 9.

Last week I wrote about a convergence I observed at the 18th annual International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation in Seville, where educators were moving past debates about policing AI toward conversations about what assessment might look like in a post-detection world. But as I’ve reflected on those conversations in Seville and the broader research emerging from conferences worldwide, I’ve realized that the consensus forming among educators extends beyond assessment methods. We’re beginning to agree not just on what won’t work in this case but also on the nature of the larger pedagogical and institutional challenges we face.

We’re confronting problems far more fundamental than cheating detection. The questions now occupying serious attention concern cognitive development, assessment validity, structural equity, and the basic mechanics of how human beings learn. What strikes me most about this shift is what it reveals. The technological arms race to detect AI-generated work wasn’t just ineffective; it was a distraction from the deeper crisis we now must confront.

The Contours of Consensus

The emerging agreement isn’t about what to do with AI in education, as that remains fiercely contested. Instead, it concerns which questions we need to address. This convergence of research results would have appeared pessimistic, if not alarmist, only a year and a half prior. Now they appear measured, empirically grounded, and increasingly difficult to dismiss.

First, there’s broad acknowledgment that generative AI fundamentally differs from previous educational technologies. Unlike calculators, which offload arithmetic computation, or search engines, which externalize information retrieval, large language models offload the synthesis and generation of ideas themselves. This distinction matters because it shifts the locus of cognitive work in ways that directly challenge traditional learning theories. A tool that can create coherent essays doesn’t just improve students’ abilities—it potentially substitutes for the very cognitive processes we’re trying to develop.

Second, the field has largely abandoned the fantasy of reliable detection. The technical limitations of AI detection tools, including problematic false positive rates and a vulnerability to simple workarounds, have become undeniable. More significantly, the legal vulnerabilities these tools create for institutions are now well documented. What promised to preserve the existing system intact turned out to be a conceptual dead end, not just a technical setback.

Third, educators and researchers increasingly recognize that adoption has drastically outpaced institutional readiness. Global surveys show that up to 86% of students now use AI tools in their studies, with more than half engaging with these tools weekly. Meanwhile, 45% of educators report receiving no formal training on AI integration. This literacy gap creates a dangerous asymmetry. Students operate with tools that act as cognitive force multipliers, while educators lack the frameworks to assess the actual learning beneath the polished outputs.

These three points of consensus establish the landscape we’re operating in. But they also open onto deeper questions about what happens when students have constant access to tools that can think for them. The challenges that follow—five of them, each fundamental in its own way—require us to reconsider assumptions about learning, assessment, and institutional structure that have shaped education for decades.

1. The Cognitive Development Challenge

Before examining how we might assess learning in this environment, we need to understand what’s at stake. The concern extends beyond academic integrity into questions about cognitive development itself.

Learning requires what researchers call “desirable difficulty,” a productive struggle that forces learners to construct and integrate knowledge actively. Generative AI, by providing immediate synthesized responses, removes this friction. Students can complete assignments, solve problems, and produce sophisticated outputs without engaging in the cognitive work that those tasks were designed to develop.

Recent research has documented what this looks like in practice. Studies of students using AI coding assistants find that while they complete programming assignments more quickly, many show significantly impaired problem-solving abilities when the AI scaffolding is removed. Investigations of AI use in writing find that students who rely heavily on these tools often struggle to explain or defend the arguments present in their own submissions. Perhaps most concerning, evidence suggests that students who use AI extensively overestimate their own competence. They conflate the tool’s capabilities with their own knowledge, creating what researchers call an “illusion of knowing.”

This cognitive challenge intersects with the assessment crisis in revealing ways. If students are using AI to complete assignments in ways that bypass the intended learning, then the problem isn’t merely that we can’t detect this use. Rather, it’s that the assignments themselves have become disconnected from the learning outcomes they were meant to assess. The actual issue isn’t cheating; it’s the decoupling of performance from cognition.

The implication is that AI-resistant assessment serves a dual purpose. First, it maintains the validity of our credentials by ensuring that demonstrated competence reflects actual capability. Second, and perhaps more importantly, it preserves the conditions under which learning can occur by creating spaces where students must engage in productive cognitive struggle without the option of AI-mediated shortcuts. This means prioritizing process over product, ensuring that we document and assess not just what students produce but how they arrive at their conclusions.

2. The Assessment Validity Challenge

This brings us to what I consider the most consequential challenge now confronting education: the destabilization of our assessment infrastructure. This crisis extends far beyond plagiarism concerns into questions about what our credentials actually certify.

Traditional assessment methods were designed for an environment where producing sophisticated written or analytical work required the actual possession of sophisticated thinking skills. That assumption no longer holds. A student can now submit work that meets every rubric criterion for demonstration of knowledge without having engaged in the cognitive processes we believe that work represents.

The immediate response from many institutions has been to retreat toward proctored, timed examinations and controlled environments. This represents a pedagogical regression. Timed, proctored examinations systematically disadvantage students with disabilities or non-native speakers. They also measure a narrow band of cognitive skills, mainly rapid recall and performance under pressure, while failing to assess the higher-order thinking we value. In other words, surveillance-based assessment represents a retreat not merely to pre-AI conditions but to pre-21st-century pedagogical principles.

The research literature now acknowledges what many of us have recognized through practice. We need assessment methods that are AI-resistant not through technological barriers but through their fundamental design. These approaches share several characteristics. They require human interaction, such as dialogue, defense, or collaborative exploration, revealing not just what a student knows but how they know it. They emphasize process documentation alongside final products, making the learning journey itself an object of assessment. They incorporate iterative revision and feedback cycles that expose gaps in understanding that polished first drafts can conceal. And they center on authentic tasks that connect to contexts outside the artificial bubble of academic evaluation.

In short, AI-resistant methods are built on one fundamental principle: when assessment requires students to document their thinking process, to engage in dialogue about their understanding, or to defend their conclusions in conversation, it becomes significantly more difficult to substitute AI outputs for genuine learning.

3. The Equity Challenge

The consensus also acknowledges that AI in education raises profound equity concerns that extend far beyond questions of access to tools. While early discussions focused on whether all students had equal access to AI assistants, more recent analysis reveals deeper structural issues.