Cited by 25Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in EducationDigital Education and Society

Danish university policies on generative AI: Problems, assumptions and sustainability blind spots

Open access
Driessens, Olivier, Pischetola, Magda·2024·MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research

Abstract

The sudden and meteoric rise of generative Artificial Intelligence (genAI) has raised fundamental concerns for universities. Using Bacchi’s methodology on ‘problematisation’, we analyse which concerns Danish universities have addressed through their policies and guidelines. We identify three key problematisations: assessment integrity, legality of data and veracity. While each of these problematisations involves specific limitations, together they also strongly emphasise symbolic and epistemological issues and consequently mostly ignore the materiality of genAI, for example, in terms of labour and energy use. Drawing on critical AI studies, this article argues that universities should also consider the huge planetarycosts that (gen)AI poses as well as the full range of AI’s exploitative business models and practices. Universities should integrate these considerations into both their decision-making on (not) using certain technologies and their policies and guidelines for research and teaching, just as sustainability is already a criterion in their travel or investment policies today.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7146/mk.v40i76.143595

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The 'black box' nature of many GenAI systems means there is significant uncertainty about how user data is actually utilized for training or profiling, and whether it is shared with third parties.

    “The”

    From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Driessens & Pischetola, 2024

    The paper’s discussion of Danish university policies describes a perceived lack of transparency about the use of inputted data and notes that OpenAI’s terms allow such data to be used for training (page unavailable). Its ‘Concerns regarding genAI in academia’ section also raises the risk of personal data reaching unauthorised persons. It does not specifically attribute these uncertainties to a ‘black box’ mechanism or discuss profiling or sharing with third parties. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The development and operation of GenAI carry significant environmental costs, including high energy and resource consumption, and raise concerns about labor exploitation and job displacement.

    “The development and operation of GenAI carry significant environmental costs, including high energy and resource consumption, and raise concerns about labor exploitation and job displacement.”

    From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Driessens & Pischetola, 2024

    The section “Critical AI and data studies’ concerns about (gen)AI” describes substantial energy and material use during AI production, training and deployment, and gives an example of poorly paid, psychologically unsupported data-labeling work. The available passages do not address job displacement; searches for job replacement and employment did not locate support for that part of the claim. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GenAI systems inherit and amplify existing biases in their training data, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes.

    “GenAI systems inherit and amplify existing biases in their training data, leading to unfair or discriminatory outcomes.”

    From MAPPING GENERATIVE AI'S ETHICAL ISSUES IN HIGHER EDUCATION: A FELT-GUIDED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW [PEMETAAN ISU ETIKA GENERATIVE AI DI PENDIDIKAN TINGGI: TINJAUAN SISTEMATIS BERPANDUAN FELT] (2025) · cites this paper as Driessens & Pischetola, 2024

    In the discussion of Danish university policies (page unavailable), the paper links bias in training data to unequal results and warns of the reproduction of inequalities through biased and discriminating output. It does not establish that GenAI amplifies those biases, rather than reproducing them. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • GenAI causes environmental damage, with CO2 emissions and water consumption particularly concerning.

    “Finally, genAI causes environmental damage, with CO2 emissions and water consumption particularly concerning (Carrigan, 2024;de Fine Licht, 2024;Driessens & Pischetola, 2024).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Driessens & Pischetola, 2024

  • OpenAI created ChatGPT by extracting 300 billion words from online sources without formal consent.

    “On the planetary scale, OpenAI created ChatGPT by extracting 300 billion words from online sources without formal consent (Driessens & Pischetola, 2024).”

    From Toward Partnership Ethics for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education (2026) · cites this paper as Driessens & Pischetola, 2024

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. Albayati, H. (2024). Investigating undergraduate students' perceptions and awareness of using ChatGPT as a regular assistance tool: A user acceptance perspective study. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 100203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2024.100203 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217887 · DOI
  3. Bacchi, C. L. (2009). Analysing policy: What's the problem represented to be? Pearson.
  4. Bacchi, C. L. (2019). Introducing the 'What's the Problem Represented to be?' approach. In M. Tröndle & C. Steigerwald (Eds.), Anthologie Kulturpolitik: Einführende Beiträge zu Geschichte, Funktionen und Diskur- sen der Kulturpolitikforschung (pp. 427-430). Transcript Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783839437322-031 · DOI
  5. Baldassarre, M. T., Caivano, D., Fernandez Nieto, B., Gigante, D., & Ragone, A. (2023). The Social Impact of Generative AI: An Analysis on ChatGPT. In Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Conference on Information Technology for Social Good, 363-373. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582515.3609555 · DOI
  6. Blum-Ross, A., & Livingstone, S. (2018). The trouble with "screen time" rules. In G. Mascheroni, C. L. Ponte, & A. Jorge (Eds.), Digital Parenting: The challenges for families in the digital age (pp. 179-187). Nordi- com, University of Gothenburg. http://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1265024&dswid=-814
  7. Brevini, B. (2020). Black boxes, not green: Mythologizing artificial intelligence and omitting the environ- ment. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 2053951720935141. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720935141 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Brevini, B. (2021). Creating the technological saviour: Discourses on AI in Europe and the legitimation of super capitalism. In P. Verdegem (Ed.), AI for Everyone? Critical perspectives (pp. 145-159). University of Westminster Press. https://doi.org/10.16997/book55.i. · DOI
  9. Brodie, P. (2023). Data infrastructure studies on an unequal planet. Big Data & Society, 10(1), 20539517231182402. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231182402 · DOI
  10. Callanan, E., Mbakwe, A., Papadimitriou, A., Pei, Y., Sibue, M., Zhu, X., Ma, Z., Liu, X., & Shah, S. (2023). Can GPT models be Financial Analysts? An Evaluation of ChatGPT and GPT-4 on mock CFA Exams (arXiv:2310.08678). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.08678 · DOI
  11. Chavanayarn, S. (2023). Navigating ethical complexities through epistemological analysis of ChatGPT. Bul- letin of Science, Technology & Society, 02704676231216355. https://doi.org/10.1177/02704676231216355 · DOI
  12. Cheng, M. W. T., & Yim, I. H. Y. (2024). Examining the use of ChatGPT in public universities in Hong Kong: A case study of restricted access areas. Discover Education, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-023-00081-8 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Choi, J., Hickman, K., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. (2022). ChatGPT goes to law school. Journal of Legal Education, 71(3), 387-400. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4335905 · DOI
  14. Coeckelbergh M (2022) The political philosophy of AI. Polity Press.
  15. Coeckelbergh, M., & Gunkel, D. J. (2023). ChatGPT: deconstructing the debate and moving it forward. AI & SOCIETY, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01710-4 · DOI
  16. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropri- ating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503609754 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Crawford, K. (2021). The atlas of AI: Power, politics, and the planetary costs of artificial intelligence. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300252392 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kar, A. K., ... & Wright, R. (2023). "So what if ChatGPT wrote it?" Multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Flores-Vivar, J. M., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2023). Reflections on the ethics, potential, and challenges of artifi- cial intelligence in the framework of quality education (SDG4). Comunicar, 31(74), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.3916/C74-2023-03 · DOI
  20. Goodlad, L. M. E. (2023). Humanities in the Loop. Critical AI, 1(1-2), https://doi.org/10.1215/2834703X-10734016 · DOI
  21. Gorichanaz, T. (2023). Accused: How students respond to allegations of using ChatGPT on assessments. Learning: Research and Practice, 9(2), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/23735082.2023.2254787 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Hagendorff, T., Fabi, S., & Kosinski, M. (2023). Human-like intuitive behavior and reasoning biases emerged in large language models but disappeared in ChatGPT. Nature Computational Science, 3(10), 833-838. https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.1 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Hogan, M. (2018). Big data ecologies. Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization, 18(3), 631-657. https://ephemerajournal.org/index.php/contribution/big-data-ecologies Olivier Driessens & Magda Pischetola Article: Danish university policies on generative AI Huh, S. (2023). Are ChatGPT's knowledge and interpretation ability comparable to those of medical students in Korea for taking a parasitology examination?: A descriptive study. Journal of Educational Evaluation for Health Professions, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2023.20.1 · DOI · Paper page
  24. İpek, Z. H., Gözüm, A. I. C., Papadakis, S., & Kallogiannakis, M. (2023). Educational applications of the Chat- GPT AI system: A systematic review research. Educational Process: International Journal, 12(3), 26-55. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2023.123. · DOI
  25. Jo, H. (2023). Decoding the ChatGPT mystery: A comprehensive exploration of factors driving AI language model adoption. Information Development. https://doi.org/10.1177/02666669231202764 · DOI
  26. Kaltheuner, F. (2021). AI snake oil, pseudoscience and hype: An interview with Arvind Narayanan. In F. Kaltheuner (Ed.), Fake AI (pp. 19-38). Meatspace Press.
  27. Kiryakova, G., & Angelova, N. (2023). ChatGPT-A challenging tool for the university professors in their teaching practice. Education Sciences, 13(10), 1056. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.03271 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., Leon, L. D., Elepaño, C., Madriaga, M., Aggabao, R., Diaz-Candido, G., Maningo, J., & Tseng, V. (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health, 2(2), e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Li, P., Yang, J., Islam, M. A., & Ren, S. (2023). Making AI less 'thirsty': Uncovering and addressing the secret water footprint of AI models (arXiv:2304.03271). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.03271 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Linderoth, C., Hultén, M., & Stenliden, L. (2024). Competing visions of Artificial Intelligence in education- A heuristic analysis on sociotechnical imaginaries and problematizations in policy guidelines. Policy Futures in Education, 14782103241228900. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103241228900 · DOI
  31. Lund, B. D., & Naheem, K. t. (2024). Can ChatGPT be an author? A study of Artificial Intelligence author- ship policies in top academic journals. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 13-21. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1582 · DOI
  32. Mills, A., Bali, M., & Eaton, L. (2023). How do we respond to generative AI in education? Open educational practices give us a framework for an ongoing process. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 16-30. https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.34 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Munn, L., Magee, L., & Arora, V. (2023). Truth machines: Synthesizing veracity in AI language models. AI & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01756-4 Article: Danish university policies on generative AI Olivier Driessens & Magda Pischetola Newfield, C. (2023). How to make "AI" intelligent; or, the question of epistemic equality. Critical AI, 1(1-2), https://doi.org/10.1215/2834703X-10734076 · DOI
  34. Oravec, J. A. (2023). Artificial Intelligence implications for academic cheating: Expanding the dimensions of responsible human-AI collaboration with ChatGPT. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 34(2), 213-237.
  35. Pischetola, M. (2021). Re-imagining digital technology in education through critical and neo-materialist insights. Digital Education Review, 40(2), 154-171, https://doi.org/10.1344/der.2021.40.154-171 · DOI
  36. Rahm, L., & Rahm-Skågeby, J. (2023). Imaginaries and problematisations: A heuristic lens in the age of artifi- cial intelligence in education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(5), 1147-1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13319 · DOI
  37. Rawas, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Empowering lifelong learning in the digital age of higher education. Education and Information Technologies, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12114-8 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Ricaurte, P. (2019). Data epistemologies, the coloniality of power, and resistance. Television & New Media, 20(4), 350-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527476419831640 · DOI
  39. Roemer, G., Li, A., Mahmood, U., Dauer, L., & Bellamy, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence model GPT4 nar- rowly fails simulated radiological protection exam. Journal of Radiological Protection. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ad1fdf · DOI
  40. Selwyn, N. (2024). On the limits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Pedagogikk Og Kritikk, 10. https://doi.org/10.23865/ntpk.v10.6062 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Størup, J. O., & Lieberoth, A. (2023). What's the problem with "screen time"? A content analysis of domi- nant voices and worries in three years of national print media. Convergence, 29(1), 201-224. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565211065299 · DOI
  42. Tacheva, J., & Ramasubramanian, S. (2023). AI Empire: Unraveling the interlocking systems of oppression in generative AI's global order. Big Data & Society, 10(2), 20539517231219241. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517231219241 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Taffel, S. (2015). Archaeologies of electronic waste. Journal of Contemporary Archaeology, 2(1), 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1558/jca.v2i1.27119 · DOI
  44. Taffel, S. (2023). Data and oil: Metaphor, materiality and metabolic rifts. New Media & Society, 25(5), 980-998. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211017887 · DOI
  45. ThankGod Chinonso, E. (2023). The impact of ChatGPT on privacy and data protection laws, SSRN. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4574016 TV 2. (2023, June 30). Hver tiende studerende har snydt til eksamen med ChatGPT [Every tenth student has cheated at exams with ChatGPT]. nyheder.tv2.dk. https://nyheder.tv2.dk/tech/2023-06-30-hver-tiende-studerende-har-snydt-til-eksamen-med-chatgpt · DOI
  46. Uzun, L. (2023). ChatGPT and academic integrity concerns: Detecting artificial intelligence generated content. Language Education and Technology, 3(1), 45-54.
  47. Williamson, B. (2017). Big Data in education: The digital future of learning, policy and practice. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529714920 · DOI · Paper page
  48. Winner, L. (1978). Autonomous technology: Technics-out-of-control as a theme in political thought. MIT Press.
  49. Winograd, A. (2023). Loose-lipped large language models spill your secrets: The privacy implications of large language models. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 36(2), 616-656. https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v36/Winograd-Loose-Lipped-LLMs.pdf

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Driessens, O., & Pischetola, M.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Venue
MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research
Published
2024-08-30
Volume
40
Issue
76
Pages
31-52
ISSN
  • 0900-9671 (ISSN-L)
  • 1901-9726
OpenAlex
W4402099135
Cited by
25
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 2
FWCI
10.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • MedieKultur Journal of media and communication research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Artificial Intelligence in Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Digital Education and Society
Keywords
generative AI, AI policy in higher education, problematization, assessment integrity, honesty, critical AI studies, environmental costs of AI, energy consumption, AI business models, epistemology of AI, Danish universities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review