Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.04751

What is Ethical: AIHED Driving Humans or Human-Driven AIHED? A Conceptual Framework enabling the Ethos of AI-driven Higher education

Prashant Mahajan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Higher Education (HE) is transforming personalized learning, administrative automation, and decision-making. However, this progress presents a duality, as AI adoption also introduces ethical and institutional challenges, including algorithmic bias, data privacy risks, and governance inconsistencies. To address these concerns, this study introduces the Human-Driven AI in Higher Education (HD-AIHED) Framework, ensuring compliance with UNESCO and OECD ethical standards. This conceptual research employs a qualitative meta-synthesis approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative studies to identify patterns, contradictions, and gaps in AI adoption within HE. It reinterprets existing datasets through theoretical and ethical lenses to develop governance frameworks. The study applies a participatory integrated co-system, Phased Human Intelligence, SWOC analysis, and AI ethical review boards to assess AI readiness and governance strategies for universities and HE institutions. The HD-AIHED model bridges AI research gaps, addresses global real-time challenges, and provides tailored, scalable, and ethical strategies for diverse educational contexts. By emphasizing interdisciplinary collaboration among stakeholders, this study envisions AIHED as a transparent and equitable force for innovation. The HD-AIHED framework ensures AI acts as a collaborative and ethical enabler rather than a disruptive replacement for human intelligence while advocating for responsible AI implementation in HE.

Explore related subjects

cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Prashant Mahajan. 2025-02-07. What is Ethical: AIHED Driving Humans or Human-Driven AIHED? A Conceptual Framework enabling the Ethos of AI-driven Higher education. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.04751

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

HumanAgencyBench: Scalable Evaluation of Human Agency Support in AI Assistants

As humans delegate more tasks and decisions to artificial intelligence (AI), we risk losing control of our individual and collective futures. Relatively simple algorithmic systems already steer human decision-making, such as social media feed algorithms that lead people to unintentionally and absent-mindedly scroll through engagement-optimized content. In this paper, we develop the idea of human agency by integrating philosophical and scientific theories of agency with AI-assisted evaluation methods: using large language models (LLMs) to simulate and validate user queries and to evaluate AI responses. We develop HumanAgencyBench (HAB), a scalable and adaptive diagnostic tool for six behaviors related to human agency. HAB measures the tendency of an AI assistant to Ask Clarifying Questions, Avoid Value Manipulation, Correct Misinformation, Defer Important Decisions, Encourage Learning, and Maintain Social Boundaries. We find low-to-moderate agency support in contemporary LLM-based assistants, with substantial variation across system developers and behaviors. For example, while Anthropic LLMs most support human agency overall, they are the least supportive LLMs in terms of Avoid Value Manipulation. These behaviors do not appear to consistently result from increasing LLM capabilities or instruction-following (e.g., RLHF); we encourage further study of these behaviors so that developers and users can better understand the complexities of modern human-AI interaction.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Can LLMs Perform Technical Comprehension of Computer Architecture Papers?

Can large language models perform technical comprehension of computer architecture papers--not summarization, but structured critique that names the core mechanism, surfaces buried assumptions, and connects a contribution beyond its own scope? We study Gauntlet, an open-source pipeline that analyzes a paper through five independent expert-persona reviewers and an adversarial synthesis stage. On 20 ISCA 2025 and HPCA 2026 papers, 10 researchers each wrote their own analyses and then judged, for papers other than their own, the human analysis against Gauntlet's. Across the 20 comparisons evaluators preferred Gauntlet in 15 (human in 4, one tie); its advantage is significant on per-analyst totals (two-sided Wilcoxon, p < 0.001) and largest on Critical Rigor. Where humans win, it is on trust and usefulness rather than depth: a confident wrong claim, a mechanism described but not taught, or unprioritized breadth. A 98-paper automated ablation shows the gain comes from the multi-agent structure: the pipeline beats the same model run as a single rich-persona agent on 96% of papers. We release all analyses, scores, and the rubric as a community resource.

cs.CY↗
arXiv2026

Beyond PUE: A Local Impact Audit Framework for Data Center Environmental Accountability

Standard data center sustainability metrics, including Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE), Water Usage Effectiveness (WUE), and Carbon Usage Effectiveness (CUE), measure a facility's resource use and emissions intensity, normalized to IT energy use, without directly representing local resource scarcity, infrastructure capacity, or social footprint. This gap has become politically consequential. In the first quarter of 2026 alone, local opposition delayed or canceled roughly $130 billion in projects across the United States, driven overwhelmingly by recurring concerns over water use, power demand, infrastructure capacity, and transparency rather than internal efficiency, matching the total for all of 2025 [11]. We propose a five-category local impact audit framework covering efficiency, water stewardship, carbon and renewables, regulatory compliance, and local disclosure. The framework is designed for recurring quarterly assessment and independent verification against public records. We illustrate its application using publicly available data from three Illinois facilities that are currently at the center of local policy disputes, and we examine the data-access barriers that constrain independent verification. We position this framework as both a research contribution and a practical instrument for county-level policymakers evaluating data center permitting and moratorium decisions.

cs.CY↗