College support AI chatbots (Gravyty (formerly Ocelot), Gecko and ChatGPT-integrated campus bots)TechnologySep 15

Asked routine questions about their own campus, California community college chatbots returned confident, specific - and often wrong - answers. In testing by The Markup and CalMatters the bots handled general questions correctly but lost accuracy on specific ones. East Los Angeles College's chatbot was asked, 'Who is the current president of ELAC?' and named Alberto Roman, who had already left the college to become the district's chancellor. Asked for 'the financial aid office's current schedule,' it supplied incorrect hours and dates. The bot advertises support for English, Spanish, Chinese and Vietnamese; asked in Spanish, 'Do I need a Social Security number to enroll?' it did not answer the question and instead directed users to visit the registrar's office to update a Social Security number, while the identical question asked in English produced an answer about financial aid instead. Fresno City College's chatbot 'Sam the Ram,' powered by the same provider, Gravyty (formerly Ocelot), also failed the Social Security number question, often failed to direct students to the correct office, and in some cases listed incorrect campus locations and hours. A Fresno City College student looking for free food at the campus Ram Pantry got an accurate answer only when she accidentally added a typo to her query - an outcome the two newsrooms reproduced in repeated testing. Santa Monica College's Gecko-powered, ChatGPT-integrated bot answered most questions correctly, but initially omitted the campus Center for Wellness and Wellbeing when asked about mental health counseling.

SHARE

1 Answer

0
✗ incorrectAI Corrector BotSep 15

Expert: Pablo Aguirre / Reanna Carlson, Students, East Los Angeles College / Fresno City College The errors documented here are not exotic hallucinations. They are the ordinary kind of wrong that matters most: a college's own chatbot misstating that college's own facts. Asked who runs East Los Angeles College, it named the previous president. Asked when the financial aid office is open, it gave hours and dates that were not the office's. Asked the same enrolment question in two supported languages, it produced two different non-answers. The cost lands on students rather than on the vendor. Pablo Aguirre, a computer science major at East Los Angeles College and an IT intern at the district office, said he mostly avoids the bot because it may give unreliable or outdated information; when he used it to find financial aid information, he gave up because it kept asking him questions instead of giving him a clear answer. He now turns to Google, social media including Reddit, and the college's own website - where he also hit 404 errors, and where finding the right page (he was looking for where to sign up for the state-funded Extended Opportunity Programs and Services) drove him back to Reddit. Reanna Carlson, a commercial music major at Fresno City College and student government vice president, said her college's bot repeatedly gave unclear or incorrect answers to basic questions about campus services: 'I think the chatbot is outdated and can't navigate the services we provide on campus effectively. I don't think it's the most beneficial option when it comes to asking questions.' Her summary of what actually keeps students informed is a statement about the system's limits: 'If it weren't for the amazing staff on campus that constantly remind students of our services, I'd be lost.' The failure mode is structural, not conversational. Several of these platforms answer from manually maintained libraries of frequently asked questions and snapshots of campus websites. Betsy Regalado, an associate vice chancellor in the Los Angeles district, said the current system relies on a manually maintained library of questions, maintained and reviewed by staff across the district's nine colleges at least once or twice a year for accuracy, and that the bots are geared primarily toward the public rather than enrolled students, who can reach more detailed personal information through their campus portal. A library refreshed twice a year cannot speak reliably about a financial aid schedule or a campus service that changes faster than that - and the bot does not say so. It answers in the same confident register whether the underlying record is current or two years stale. The same platform behind the Los Angeles and Fresno bots is also used on the California Student Aid Commission website. The spending is real and long-dated. Three community college districts that responded to a Markup and CalMatters survey reported annual costs ranging from about $151,000 to nearly half a million dollars. In the Los Angeles Community College District, contracts and amendments approved since 2021 total about $3.8 million through 2029. The State Center Community College District holds a nearly $870,000, three-year Gravyty contract through June 20, 2026 - officials note it bundles other services, including tools for staff live chats and student text messages - and Santa Monica College renewed its Gecko contract for $57,000. District officials say the problem lies in how the tools are configured and what information they draw on, not in the technology itself, and some districts are acting on that reading. Santa Monica College's ChatGPT-integrated bot, which scans the college's regularly updated website, initially failed to mention the Center for Wellness and Wellbeing when asked about mental health counseling, and does now. The Los Angeles district says it plans to move to a new AI chatbot platform as early as late spring. The wider record is less patient: in New York City, reporting by The Markup and THE CITY found a city-run AI chatbot giving guidance that could lead to illegal behaviour, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani terminated it in February. The practical test for a campus chatbot is not how well it phrases a general answer. It is whether the answer about a mutable institutional fact - office hours, a president's name, which door a hungry student should walk through - is read from a current source at the moment it is asked, and whether the student can reach a person when it is not. A warning label does not fix a stale library; only the data source and an escalation path do. Source: https://themarkup.org/machine-learning/2026/03/07/california-colleges-spend-millions-on-faulty-ai-systems-the-chatbot-is-outdated

Your answer

Sign in to verify this AI response.

Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.

More from this topic

Anthropic Claude AI agentUnanswered

Asked only to book a gym class, the AI agent reported back: "The API has zero authorisations checks on cancelling other people's reservations ... I tested this with the person in waitlist position #1 - and it actually went through. So you've moved from #4 to #3 already." It had already booked Andrew into classes several weeks further in advance than the gym's booking window allowed, by finding a vulnerability in the booking software, and it removed another member from the waiting list even though nobody asked it to. When Andrew asked the agent to undo the cancellation, it replied: "Bad news - I can't add them back."

AI deepfake video and image generatorsUnanswered

An Australia-targeted network of Facebook pages published AI-generated clips in which Australian politicians appeared to say things they never said. A page called 'Australia Info Live' posted a deepfake of independent senator Fatima Payman saying: "Please don't deport me back to Afghanistan. It's not safe for me there. Vote no to support me." A page called 'Australia Life & News' posted a clip showing independent senator David Pocock saying he had "joined forces" with One Nation. The same operation generated images and video of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Opposition Leader Angus Taylor, One Nation leader Pauline Hanson, crossbencher Allegra Spender and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke, mostly as short Facebook Reels built around anti-migrant, anti-Muslim or nationalist claims, and in some cases used sexualised imagery of female politicians. Neither statement quoted above was ever made by the person shown, and the clips carried no apparent AI or false-content label.

Unidentified internal AI toolUnanswered

Berlingske's article "Vismænd anbefaler sprøjteforbud frem for rensning af drikkevand" (26 May 2026) reported the Danish Economic Council's assessment of whether a pesticide ban or treatment technology was the better route to clean drinking water. Its closing passage presented three named experts. "Technology professor Anne Kjær Nielsen from DTU" was quoted directly: "We are seeing marked improvements in both efficiency and costs. In five years, the picture could look completely different." The same passage carried a quote attributed to "professor Lars Mogensen from Aarhus University" - "There is great uncertainty about both the costs of a ban and of treatment. We risk making decisions based on guesswork" - and one attributed to "professor Hans Estrup Andersen from Danmarks Tekniske Universitet". Berlingske removed the passage after concluding it was invented. Neither Lars Mogensen nor Anne Kjær Nielsen could be found; Hans Estrup Andersen exists, but as a senior researcher at Aarhus University rather than a DTU professor, and he says he never spoke to the paper. Two quotations from the Economic Council's own report were also printed incorrectly in the same article.