I Spy AI

Have you ever finished a ten-minute phone call with a parent, and, before you can even grab a cup of coffee, a 1,000-word follow-up email hits your inbox, perfectly formatted and filled with legal citations? If so, you have likely experienced the onslaught of AI-assisted advocacy.

From threatening emails to robotic-sounding complaints and overly broad FOIA requests, parents, advocates, and community members are using AI more frequently to communicate with school officials. To assist school officials with responding to these communications, this article identifies common clues that can help detect the use of AI and provides strategies for more effective responses.

Clues

When AI is used to draft written correspondence, it often leaves behind “fingerprints,” some more easily detectable than others. The following clues often indicate the writing was generated by AI:

• rapid response times;
• accidental placeholder text (e.g., [insert school district]);
• excessive use of buzzwords, such as “underscores,” “comprehensive,” and “crucial”;
• repetitive use of words and phrases; 
• inconsistencies in style, tone, or tense;
• overly formal tone (i.e., no contractions);
• use of proper grammar;
• lack of typos; 
• overuse of the em dash (e.g., “I am requesting–under FOIA–all emails related to Principal Smith.”);
• over-formatting (e.g., excessive bullet points or numbering); and
• incorrect or superfluous legal citations.

Strategies

School officials are tasked with responding to AI-generated communications, which may require sorting through repetitious, overly formal, and sometimes incoherent language to identify and address the sender’s true concerns. Below are four strategies to assist with this onerous task.

1. Focus on human interaction

Instead of endlessly responding to lengthy AI-generated emails, consider scheduling a phone conversation or in-person meeting with the sender. This cuts out the “AI middleman,” likely leading to more productive dialogue and problem solving. Note that this may not be an option if a written response is required by law (i.e., FOIA).

2. Request clarification

AI is known for producing broad, overarching statements and vague demands, making it difficult for school officials to understand the underlying issue or request. Rather than guess the sender’s intent, request specific details about the issue and what actions the sender wants the school to take to resolve it.

3. Be concise and direct

Remember, any response you provide will likely be fed back into an AI prompt to generate a rebuttal. The longer your response, the longer their rebuttal. Keeping your response concise and direct will help you avoid a “prompt war.”

School officials should also be mindful that they may be inadvertently creating records subject to disclosure under FOIA, FERPA, or a subpoena.

4. Contact legal counsel

If an AI-generated complaint suggests that the sender may pursue legal action, school officials should contact legal counsel as soon as practicable.

AI-assisted advocacy is on the rise, but it is no match for seasoned school officials. By learning how to detect the use of AI and respond strategically, school officials will be ready to handle any AI-generated output that lands in their inbox.