What Happened
The Guardian reported on 28 September 2026 that a number of Australian universities now allow academic staff to use generative AI to assist with marking student assignments and providing feedback. The report identified Western Sydney University as among the institutions where such use is permitted.
Aryan Alimardani, a senior lecturer in law and technology at Western Sydney University, told the Guardian he finds this development "extremely concerning." Alimardani has been studying and experimenting with AI for years; the Guardian spoke to him while he was in Palermo, Italy, attending a series of university workshops on the technology. He said colleagues had been asking him whether AI could help lighten the burden of grading.
"We've got to be really careful where we are stepping here," Alimardani told the Guardian. "Because I think there's always a risk, at the moment, for higher education to collapse."
His concern centres on what critics have labelled a "slop-cycle": a situation in which students submit AI-generated assignments that academics then assess using AI tools, removing meaningful human engagement from both sides of the educational exchange.
University policies cited by the Guardian acknowledge the tension. One institution's policy states that AI tools may be used to "improve efficiency and support assessment and administrative activities" and describes "a human-centred approach to generative AI use in assessment." The same policy specifies that "the awarding of marks, grades and feedback must also always be the responsibility of academic staff." Another policy states: "Academic staff may use AI tools to support certain aspects of assessment and feedback, however responsibility for academic judgement must always remain with university teaching staff."
Why It Matters
The concern is not only about academic integrity. Alimardani pointed to the financial and professional stakes for students. "Students are already financially struggling," he told the Guardian. If AI-assisted marking produces thin or generic feedback, students may conclude their degrees carry less weight with employers.
"If they are not receiving proper feedback, if they feel like their degree is not as meaningful for employers and if they think that having a university degree doesn't help them that much with guaranteeing a job, why would they come to university, really?" he said.
The Guardian framed AI marking not as a theoretical prospect but as "a fork in the road at which universities have suddenly found themselves confronted." The pressure on academic workloads is real, and AI tools are being positioned as a way to manage it. Critics argue that framing obscures what is lost when algorithmic assessment replaces academic engagement.
Key Details
University policies reviewed by the Guardian draw a clear line: AI may support aspects of assessment, but the final academic judgement on marks and grades must remain with human staff. The phrase "human-centred approach to generative AI use in assessment" appears in at least one institution's policy, according to the report.
Alimardani's position is notable given his background. He is not opposed to AI in higher education in general; his concern is specific to its use in grading, where he believes the risks to institutional credibility and student outcomes are acute.
The "slop-cycle" framing captures a feedback loop that critics say is already beginning to form: AI-generated student submissions assessed by AI tools, with neither party doing the cognitive work the degree is supposed to certify.
Background and Context
Australian universities have faced sustained pressure on academic staffing and workloads for several years. Casualisation of the academic workforce, large class sizes, and budget constraints have made the appeal of AI-assisted marking understandable to administrators and overstretched lecturers alike.
At the same time, the rapid spread of generative AI tools has made it easier for students to produce written assignments with minimal effort. Universities have struggled to develop consistent policies on student use of AI, and the question of how to assess work in that environment remains unresolved across the sector.
The Guardian's report suggests that some institutions have moved to permit AI on the marking side without fully resolving what that means for the integrity of the assessment process or the feedback students receive.
What Comes Next
The Guardian did not report any imminent regulatory intervention from Australian authorities such as the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency. Alimardani's warning, and the policies cited in the report, suggest the sector is still working out where the boundaries should sit.
The core policy question, according to the Guardian's reporting, is whether permitting AI to support marking is compatible with maintaining the human academic judgement that degrees are meant to represent. Several universities have written that requirement into policy; whether it holds in practice is a separate matter.