Most of their categories have straightforward interpretations in terms of students using the tool to cheat. They don't seem to want to/care to analyze that further and determine which are really cheating and which are more productive uses.
I think that's a bit telling on their motivations (esp. given their recent large institutional deals with universities).
Indeed. I called out the second-top category, but you could look at the top category as well:
> We found that students primarily use Claude to create and improve educational content across disciplines (39.3% of conversations). This often entailed designing practice questions, editing essays, or summarizing academic material.
Sure, throwing a paragraph of an essay at Claude and asking it to turn it into a 3-page essay could have been categorized as "editing" the essay.
And it seems pretty naked the way they lump "editing an essay" in with "designing practice questions," which are clearly very different uses, even in the most generous interpretation.
I'm not saying that the vast majority of students do use AI to cheat, but I do want to say that, if they did, you could probably write this exact same article and tell no lies, and simply sweep all the cheating under titles like "create and improve educational content."
I think that's a bit telling on their motivations (esp. given their recent large institutional deals with universities).