GPT-3 in Education: Risks and Opportunities

Since its release in 2020, OpenAI's GPT-3 has stood as the most powerful language-processing model yet produced. GPT-3 is an artificial-intelligence system designed for language tasks. Trained on more than 600 million unique web pages, including many Wikipedia articles, and requiring roughly 355 GPU years, the network already powers translation tools, chatbots, and text-generation services. Its hallmark is the ability to answer accurately and fluently when given only a brief prompt. GPT-3 can create original prose and code so convincing that humans in one study distinguished it from human writing only 52 percent of the time, which is barely above chance. Normally such powerful technology would remain restricted, but OpenAI has opened GPT-3 to public use and licenses it broadly. New applications appear each day. Most serve as writing or coding copilots, automating routine work, while others, such as EssayGenius, promise to replace student effort entirely. Because GPT-3 focuses on producing output with limited safeguards against inaccuracy or sensitive content, these uses raise clear ethical questions. Turnkey essay tools also risk undermining genuine learning. To understand GPT-3's educational impact, it is vital to identify the stakeholders and the key ethical terms.

Stakeholders

OpenAI – Owner and steward of GPT-3's intellectual property.
Students – Anyone completing coursework that GPT-3 can replicate. A student who is unaware of GPT-3's abilities will be described as ignorant.
Instructors – Teachers whose assignments can be automated by GPT-3. An instructor who is unaware of GPT-3 will likewise be labeled ignorant.
Subjects of Training Data – Individuals whose online writing was scraped into GPT-3's corpus.

Relevant Terms

Well-being – Protection from misinformation and deception. GPT-3's probabilistic output can spread errors, which affects both instructors and students.
Consent – The right of a stakeholder to refuse interaction. At present there is no reliable way to prevent students from using GPT-3.
Justice – Fair treatment under established educational norms. Bias in GPT-3's data and the cost of access threaten fairness.
Transparency – How openly relevant information is shared among stakeholders, including algorithmic openness from OpenAI and honest reporting of GPT-3 use by students.
Technosolutionism – The belief that technology alone can solve complex problems, often overlooking social or cultural factors.
Group Privacy – A group's ability to control how its collective data are processed and shared.

Ethical Considerations

Will faster writing reduce learning?

Introducing GPT-3 into classrooms may be unjust when students treat it as a full substitute for writing. The calculator analogy is helpful. Early-grade teachers restrict calculators so that pupils first internalize arithmetic concepts; excessive automation can stunt fundamental skills. Similarly, if a student pastes a prompt into GPT-3 and submits the resulting essay, research effort and critical thinking disappear. Learning depth falls, and well-being suffers because some students receive a weaker education than others.

Does unequal access threaten justice?

GPT-3 is a paid service. Students who can afford it may complete assignments more quickly and at higher quality, gaining an advantage over peers. This disparity compounds existing inequalities tied to income or representation. Yet GPT-3 could also lower barriers for writers with learning disabilities or for multilingual students by providing fluent grammar and translation. The tool can both widen and narrow gaps in justice, depending on context.

Does student use violate instructor autonomy?

Instructors assume that submitted work reflects a student's own thought. Tools such as Turnitin safeguard that premise by flagging copied text. Human writing embodies intentional meaning, a feature Descartes addresses: "We ought not to confound speech with natural movements which betray passions and may be imitated by machines as well as be manifested by animals... They have no reason at all." When GPT-3 creates prose that looks human, it deceives instructors into attributing intention where none exists, thereby undermining their autonomy and distorting assessment.

Is GPT-3 plagiarizing its training subjects?

GPT-3's corpus crawl scraped petabytes of online text without explicit consent. Classic plagiarism means passing another's work as one's own. GPT-3 aggregates and rephrases millions of such works, acting as an omnivorous ghostwriter. Writers lose control of their unique synthesis and effectively cede it to an algorithm. A similar concern surrounds DALL-E, which imitates visual artists' styles without permission.

Recommendations

Redesign assignments to resist over-automation

Tasks that can be solved with a short prompt invite GPT-3 completion. Simple reading responses, once reliable proof of engagement, now take seconds to automate. Instructors should craft open-ended prompts, ask students to propose their own questions, or require reflective commentary on any AI-generated text. Greater abstraction forces genuine engagement.

Recognize watermarking and bans as partial solutions

OpenAI proposes invisible watermarks in GPT-3 output, yet cryptographers predict reliable workarounds. Banning specific platforms also fails because thousands of apps already embed GPT-3. The technology is too pervasive to prohibit outright.

Integrate GPT-3 as a learning accelerant

Instead of banning AI, teachers could require its use while grading students on verification and editing. GPT-3 sometimes returns incorrect answers by design; the true skill becomes a student's ability to critique and refine the machine's output. Prompt writing itself demands clear communication. This approach moves evaluation from rote fluency to higher-order reasoning and ensures that every student gains supervised experience with a paid tool.

Provide targeted education on GPT-3

Both instructors and students need literacy in GPT-3's mechanics, potential biases, and error patterns. Without such transparency, misinformation will spread, compromising well-being and justice. Ignorant instructors risk grading AI essays unknowingly; ignorant students miss the chance to learn prompt skills that are likely to be valuable in future workplaces.

Conclusion

GPT-3 challenges teaching practices much as calculators once challenged arithmetic drills. Its speed and fluency can hollow out writing tasks, yet they can also enhance learning when used thoughtfully. Ensuring justice, protecting autonomy, and fostering transparency will require educators to rethink assignment design, teach verification skills, and recognize that technology alone cannot resolve deeper inequities. With deliberate integration, GPT-3 can serve as a catalyst rather than a threat in the classroom.

Citations

In group privacy: The Challenges of Ne Data Technologies, Eds. Taylor, L., van der Sloot, B., Floridi, L. Springer, forthcoming 2016. Pasquale, Frank. Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Harvard University Press, 2016. Thompson, Ben. "AI Homework." Stratechery, 6 Dec 2022, https://stratechery.com/2022/ai-homework/. Wiggers, Kyle. "OpenAI's Attempts to Watermark AI Text Hit Limits." TechCrunch, 10 Dec 2022, https://techcrunch.com/2022/12/10/openais-attempts-to-watermark-ai-text-hit-limits/. "Is DALL-E's Art Borrowed or Stolen?" Engadget, Dec 2022, https://www.engadget.com/dall-e-generative-ai-tracking-data-privacy-160034656.html. Dehouche, Nassim. "Plagiarism in the Age of Massive Generative Pre-Trained Transformers." 2021, https://philarchive.org/archive/DEHPIT. Descartes, René. Discourse on Method. Macmillan, 1986. Rees, Tobias. "Non-Human Words: On GPT-3 as a Philosophical Laboratory." Daedalus 151, no. 2 (2022): 168–82. van Riel, Raphael and Robert Van Gulick. "Scientific Reduction." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2019, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/scientific-reduction.