The Inference Report

Early 2025 we ran a series of vibe coding challenges across four different student cohorts. The cohorts included 54 ICT students, 24 digital marketing students, and 7 journalism students at Fontys University of Applied Sciences (Netherlands), and 22 BA Communication students at North-West University (South Africa). From the student reflections, five major patterns emerged. Students reported that AI tools shifted their focus from syntax to higher-order thinking; they also described a skill shift from memorizing to evaluating; they viewed AI proficiency as career-essential; they framed their relationship with AI as partnership rather than replacement; and finally non-technical students showed the strongest appreciation for the accessibility these tools provide. This practitioner report documents what we observed during the classroom experiments, we reflect on how the landscape has shifted in the year since, and shares practical lessons for educators considering similar experiments. We present the observations as what they are: patterns from practice, not proven conclusions, in the beleif that sharing early stage experiences contributes to the overall field of AI and education.

The rapid convergence of artificial intelligence (AI) toward conversational chatbot interfaces marks a critical moment for the industry. This paper argues that the chatbot paradigm is not a neutral interface choice, but a dominant sociotechnical configuration whose widespread adoption reshapes social, economic, legal, and environmental systems. We examine how treating AI primarily as conversational assistants has extensive structural downsides. We show how chatbot-based systems often fail to adequately meet user needs, particularly in complex or high-stakes contexts, while projecting confidence and authority. We further analyze how the normalization of chatbot-mediated interaction alters patterns of work, learning, and decision-making, contributing to deskilling, homogenization of knowledge, and shifting expectations of expertise. Finally, we examine broader societal effects, including labor displacement, concentration of economic power, and increased environmental costs driven by sustained investment in large-scale chatbot infrastructures. While acknowledging legitimate benefits, we argue that the current trajectory of AI development reflects specific value choices that prioritize conversational generality over domain specificity, accountability, and long-term social sustainability. We conclude by outlining alternative directions for AI development and governance that move beyond one-size-fits-all chatbots, emphasizing pluralistic system design, task-specific tools, and institutional safeguards to mitigate social and economic harm.

Current Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based tutoring systems (AI tutors) are primarily evaluated based on the pedagogical quality of their feedback messages. While important, pedagogy alone is insufficient because it ignores a critical question: what do students actually do with the feedback they receive? We argue that AI tutor evaluation should be extended with a behavioral dimension grounded in student interaction data, which complements pedagogical assessment. We propose an evaluation framework and apply it to 10,235 code submissions with corresponding AI tutor feedback from an introductory undergraduate programming course to measure whether students act on tutor feedback and whether those actions are applied correctly. Using this framework to compare two deployed AI tutors across different semesters in a large-scale introductory computer science course reveals substantial differences in student engagement patterns that are not captured by pedagogy-only evaluation. Moreover, these engagement-based behavioral signals are more strongly associated with student perception of helpful feedback than pedagogical quality alone, providing a more complete and actionable picture of AI tutor performance.

Continuous post-deployment compliance audits, mandated by emerging regulations such as the EU AI Act and Digital Services Act, create a class of strategic gaming distinct from the one-shot input/output gaming studied in prior work. Regulated systems can delay outcome reporting, drift their reports within plausible noise envelopes, exploit longitudinal sample attrition, and cherry-pick among ambiguous metric definitions. We formalize continuous auditing as a $T$-round Stackelberg game between an auditor that commits to a temporal policy and an adaptive auditee, and identify a structural feature of any noise-aware static-auditor design: a cover regime in which coverage gaps and granularity gaps cannot be closed simultaneously. We make this formal as Observation 1 and show that two minimal extension policies, each derived from the observation, close the regime along orthogonal axes: a sample-size-aware static rule (Periodic-with-floor) closes the granularity-failure case, while a history-conditioned suspicion-escalation policy closes the coverage-failure case for the naive Drift strategy -- and neither closes both, exactly as the observation predicts; an audit-aware OffAuditDrift strategy that exploits Stackelberg commitment defeats both. To support empirical study we contribute a non-additive harm decomposition (welfare loss $W$, coverage loss $C$) that exposes how attrition shifts harm from the regulator-accountable surface to a regulator-invisible one; an initial library of five auditee strategies (Delay, Drift, Cherry-pick, Attrition, OffAuditDrift) and five auditor policies, calibrated to summary statistics from published audits of the DSA Transparency Database; and a reproducible simulator with a small, extensible Python interface.

We argue that AI-saturated markets are likely to create Veblen-good premiums, which we term human-provenance premiums, for verified human presence, and hence AI governance should treat human-provenance verification as labor infrastructure. Generative and agentic AI systems lower the cost of many standardized cognitive, creative, and coordination tasks, weakening the scarcity premiums that have supported much middle-tier knowledge work. We argue that this pressure may produce an asymmetric barbell-shaped structure of value capture in advanced economies: high-volume synthetic production controlled by owners of AI infrastructure at one pole, and scarce, high-status human labor valued for verified human presence at the other. We advance three claims. First, AI compresses the value of standardized middle-tier labor by making good-enough synthetic substitutes scalable at low marginal cost, hollowing out the middle of the skill distribution currently categorized by knowledge work. Second, this compression reallocates demand for human labor toward work valued for its visible human character. We term this performative humanity and distinguish three forms of labor: relational presence, aesthetic provenance, and accountability. Third, as these premiums depend on credible verification, AI governance should treat human-provenance systems as labor infrastructure rather than as luxury authenticity labels. To evaluate hybrid human-AI work, we propose constitutive human presence as the relevant standard: human labor retains premium value when human judgment, attention, accountability, authorship, or relational participation is not incidental to the output but constitutive of what is being purchased.

The scope of AI safety and alignment work in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has so far mostly been limited to harms related to: (a) discrimination and hate speech, (b) harmful/inappropriate (violent, sexual, illegal) content, (c) information hazards, and (d) use cases related to malicious actors, such as cybersecurity, child abuse, and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats. The public conversation around AI, on the other hand, has also been focusing on threats to our cognition, mental health, and welfare at large, related to over-relying on new technologies, most recently, those related to GenAI. Examples include deskilling associated with cognitive offloading and the atrophy of critical thinking as a result of over-reliance on GenAI systems, and addiction associated with attachment and dependence on GenAI systems. Such risks are rarely addressed, if at all, in the AI safety and alignment literature. In this paper, we highlight and quantify this discrepancy and discuss some initial thoughts on how safety and alignment work could address cognitive and mental health concerns. Finally, we discuss how information campaigns and regulation can be used to mitigate such prominent risks.