Student Fails Exam for AI-Assisted Cheating; Mother Confronts Professor at University of Crete

The AI system was used to detect plagiarism in the student's exam, which directly caused the student to be failed (zeroed). This is a clear harm to the student in an academic context (harm to the student's academic record and rights). The incident involves the use of AI in grading and plagiarism detection, leading to a dispute and pressure on the professor. Since the AI system's use directly led to a realized harm (academic penalty and ensuing conflict), this event meets the criteria for an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly states that the student was failed due to copying from AI, indicating the AI system was used improperly, leading to a violation of academic integrity and intellectual property rights. The professor's refusal to change the grade despite pressure shows the harm has materialized. The AI system's misuse directly caused the harm (student cheating), fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The confrontation and pressure from the mother and her colleague are secondary but related consequences. Hence, this event is best classified as an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI by a student to cheat on an exam, which is a misuse of an AI system leading to a violation of academic integrity and fairness. The professor's response and the zero grade reflect the direct consequence of the AI misuse. This fits the definition of an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm in terms of violation of rights and ethical standards within the university setting. The incident is not merely a potential risk but a realized harm, thus qualifying as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system as the student was caught copying from AI, which led to the failing grade. The misuse of AI for cheating constitutes a violation of academic integrity, which can be considered a harm to the educational community and a breach of ethical standards. The professor's refusal to change the grade despite pressure confirms the harm has materialized. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm caused by the AI system's misuse.

The AI system's use (AI tools for cheating) directly led to the student's exam being invalidated, which is a harm to the academic process and institutional rights. The article explicitly mentions the use of AI for cheating and the resulting zero grade, which is a direct consequence of AI misuse. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use caused a realized harm (academic integrity violation and grade nullification).

The AI system is explicitly involved as the tool used for cheating, which led to the student receiving a zero grade. The professor's refusal to change the grade despite pressure shows the harm (academic dishonesty and its consequences) has materialized. The event involves the use and misuse of AI, leading to a direct harm (academic integrity violation and unfair grading). Hence, it qualifies as an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The article explicitly mentions AI was used to detect cheating, leading to the student's zero grade. The professor's refusal to change the grade is based on this AI detection. There is no indication that the AI system malfunctioned or caused harm beyond enforcing academic rules. The confrontation by the mother is a social incident but not an AI-related harm. No injury, rights violation, or other harms defined in the framework occurred. The event adds context to AI's role in education and societal responses but does not describe a new AI Incident or Hazard. Hence, it is best classified as Complementary Information.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI by a student to cheat on an exam, which led to the student being failed (harm to the student's academic standing). This is a direct harm caused by the use of an AI system. The professor's account confirms the AI involvement and the resulting academic penalty. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (academic failure) and a dispute over the grade.

The event explicitly involves the use of AI by the student to cheat on an exam, which led to the student being failed. This is a direct harm caused by the AI system's use, as it undermines academic integrity and fairness, constituting a violation of institutional rules and potentially ethical standards. The mother's attempt to pressure the professor does not change the nature of the incident but highlights the social context. Since the AI system's use directly caused a negative outcome (failure due to cheating), this meets the criteria for an AI Incident. There is no indication that the event is merely a potential risk (hazard) or a complementary information update, nor is it unrelated to AI.

The event explicitly mentions the student's use of AI to copy work, which led to a direct harm: the student was failed on the assignment. This constitutes a violation of intellectual property rights and academic rules, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The involvement of AI in the misconduct and the resulting penalty clearly link the AI system's use to realized harm. The mother's attempt to influence the professor does not change the classification but adds context to the incident.

The student's use of AI to copy on an exam is a direct use of an AI system that caused harm by violating academic integrity and resulting in a zero grade. This is a clear harm linked to the AI system's use. The mother's demand for regrading is a reaction to this harm but does not change the classification. The event involves realized harm caused by AI use, so it is an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.

The event explicitly involves an AI system as the source of copied content by the student, which led to the student failing the exam. This constitutes harm to the student's academic standing and integrity enforcement by the university, which is a form of harm related to rights and obligations in an educational context. The AI system's use (copying from AI) directly led to this harm. Although the harm is not physical or to critical infrastructure, it is a violation of academic standards and rights enforcement, fitting under violations of obligations under applicable law or institutional rules. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident.

The event explicitly involves a student copying from an AI system, which is an AI system's use leading to academic misconduct and harm to educational integrity. This constitutes a direct harm linked to the AI system's use. The confrontation by the mother is a consequence of this incident but does not change the classification. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident due to realized harm caused by the AI system's misuse in an academic context.

The AI system was explicitly involved as the source of the student's copied work, leading directly to the student's failure. The misuse of the AI system (copying from AI-generated content) caused harm to the academic integrity and fairness of the examination process. This is a direct harm linked to the use of an AI system, fitting the definition of an AI Incident. The confrontation by the student's mother is a related social reaction but does not change the classification.

The event explicitly involves a student using AI to cheat on an exam, which is a misuse of an AI system leading to harm in the form of academic dishonesty and undermining institutional integrity. The professor's response and the mother's attempt to influence grading further highlight the direct consequences of AI misuse. The AI system's involvement is clear and directly linked to the harm caused, fulfilling the criteria for an AI Incident under violations of obligations protecting fundamental rights and harm to communities (academic community).

The event clearly involves an AI system, as students used AI-generated text to cheat on exams. The misuse of AI directly led to harm in the form of academic dishonesty and unfair evaluation, which can be classified as a violation of ethical and institutional rights (a form of harm to the academic community). The professor's detection and response confirm the AI system's role in causing this harm. Therefore, this qualifies as an AI Incident because the AI system's use directly led to harm (academic integrity violation).

The event explicitly involves AI systems used by students to cheat in exams by submitting AI-generated content. The professor detected this misuse and penalized the students accordingly. The harm here is a violation of academic integrity and rights, which falls under violations of obligations intended to protect intellectual property and fundamental rights in an educational context. The AI system's use directly led to this harm. The presence of AI is clear, the misuse is documented, and the harm is realized, making this an AI Incident rather than a hazard or complementary information.