IIM Ahmedabad student Yugantar Gupta was in overnight fame mode on LinkedIn the other day after he shared how he had attempted a marketing assignment that earned him an A+ grade with ChatGPT. His article ignited a grand controversy regarding the application of AI for homework at the collegiate level in everyday life and life at elite schools like IIMs. The observation he made called forth highly relevant questions on novelty, learning contribution, and the effect of AI revolutionizing the education process.
Yugantar provided an explanation in his post that IIM Ahmedabad does not exactly support plagiarism but prefers the use of tools such as ChatGPT as per its policy. Having knowledge about the policy, he proceeded to utilize AI as part of his activity on a project to market cosmetics. But rather than depending solely on AI, he first visited the field to collect real data. He entered eight beauty parlors, observed human behavior from a distance, and captured minute voice transcripts of client questions and conversations.
In school, Yugantar placed these observations and transcripts in ChatGPT and asked it to give him a well-formatted report based on the project requirements. He ensured that the final report was not just an AI product but well-edited to become valid and quality. To his astonishment, the project was awarded an A+ — something not achieved by many at IIM Ahmedabad, kept for the top 5%, and sometimes even not awarded by some professors.
The same blog by Yugantar pointed out that AI alone cannot create quality academic work. The actual worth, he underlined, lies in original research, actual-world interactions, and learnings with personal effort—a thing that no AI can provide. He gave three lessons also to his friends:
1. Use AI as a support but take additional time to edit and review the result.
2. Interview real human beings to gather hoards of information, not topping up copy generated by AI.
3. Interview peers' beyond and professionals' networks to gain a richer understanding.
His words set off a flood of words on the Internet. While widely applauded for showing a reflective and balanced use of AI in learning, there were others with reservations over too much dependence on technology. Some believed that AI would increase productivity but human inquiry, field observations, and initiative continue to be at the core of genuine learning and value generation.
In general, Yugantar's experience was an indication of how AI could be used as a constructive force within academia—but only when supplemented with human effort, brainpower, and care.
