ibl.ai Agentic AI Blog

Insights on building and deploying agentic AI systems. Our blog covers AI agent architectures, LLM infrastructure, MCP servers, enterprise deployment strategies, and real-world implementation guides. Whether you are a developer building AI agents, a CTO evaluating agentic platforms, or a technical leader driving AI adoption, you will find practical guidance here.

Topics We Cover

Featured Research and Reports

We analyze key research from leading institutions and labs including Google DeepMind, Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta AI, McKinsey, and the World Economic Forum. Our content includes detailed analysis of reports on AI agents, foundation models, and enterprise AI strategy.

For Technical Leaders

CTOs, engineering leads, and AI architects turn to our blog for guidance on agent orchestration, model evaluation, infrastructure planning, and building production-ready AI systems. We provide frameworks for responsible AI deployment that balance capability with safety and reliability.

Back to Blog

Digital Education Council: Global AI Meets Academia Faculty Survey 2025

Jeremy WeaverFebruary 5, 2025
Premium

The survey shows that while many faculty see AI as an opportunity and are beginning to integrate it into teaching, they remain cautious due to concerns over student reliance, unclear institutional guidelines, and a lack of adequate AI literacy resources.

Digital Education Council: Global AI Meets Academia Faculty Survey 2025



Summary of Read Full Report

The Digital Education Council's 2025 Global AI Faculty Survey report analyzes faculty perspectives on AI integration in higher education. Key findings reveal widespread AI use, primarily for creating teaching materials, but also significant concerns about student AI evaluation skills and over-reliance.

Faculty desire stronger institutional support, clearer guidelines, and improved AI literacy resources. The report highlights a positive outlook on AI's potential, while acknowledging challenges regarding assessment methods, workload, and ethical considerations.

Here are some interesting takeaways from the Digital Education Council Global AI Faculty Survey 2025 that may not be mainstream:

  • Faculty are using AI in teaching, but cautiously: While 61% of faculty have used AI in teaching, a large majority (88%) of those are using it minimally to moderately. This suggests that even among those who have adopted AI, there is a tendency to limit its integration into their teaching practices. This could be due to lack of clear guidelines and example use cases or deliberate choice by faculty.
  • Faculty sentiment on AI is divided, with a notable neutral stance: While 57% of faculty hold a positive view of AI in education, a significant 30% remain neutral. This indicates a substantial proportion of educators are either uncertain or have mixed feelings about AI's impact. This neutrality is an important factor to consider when implementing AI strategies at educational institutions.
  • Most faculty see AI as an opportunity, but a significant minority see it as a challenge: 65% of faculty view AI as an opportunity in education, while 35% see it as a challenge. This split in perception suggests that there are underlying concerns and that a significant portion of educators may need more support in understanding AI's benefits and how to address potential downsides.
  • Faculty anticipate significant changes to their roles, but are unclear on the specifics: The majority of faculty (64%) believe that AI will bring significant to transformative changes to their roles as instructors. However, a considerable portion (16%) are not fully aware of the possible changes, which suggests a need for institutions to rectify this information gap through AI literacy and skills training.
  • Most faculty are at early stages of AI proficiency: A large percentage of faculty (40%) are at the beginning or have no understanding of AI literacy and skills. Only a small minority (4%) consider themselves experts. This highlights that considerable development of AI literacy and skills is required among the faculty.
  • There is a high level of concern over students’ ability to evaluate AI: A significant majority of faculty (83%) are concerned about students’ ability to critically evaluate AI-generated output. This is a key area of concern for faculty, and it is connected to their view of the most important skills that educators need in the age of AI, which is facilitating critical thinking.
  • Faculty worry about student over-reliance on AI: A large majority (82%) of faculty are concerned about students becoming overly dependent on AI tools. This shows that faculty are not only worried about the quality of the work of students using AI, but also how that work may affect students' learning and their capacity for independent thinking.
  • Most faculty don't find institutional AI guidelines comprehensive or clear: A large majority of faculty (80%) do not find their institutional AI guidelines for teaching to be comprehensive, and 80% also feel there is a lack of clarity on how AI can be applied in teaching. This demonstrates a significant gap between institutional guidance and faculty needs and perceptions.
  • There is significant dissatisfaction with AI literacy resources: A large percentage (78%) of faculty do not believe that their institutions have provided sufficient resources to develop faculty AI literacy. This indicates a critical need for institutions to invest in adequate training and resources to help faculty adapt to the changing educational landscape.
  • Faculty are keen to explore AI but cautious about its use in grading: Faculty are mostly happy to explore AI in course design, creating assignments, and developing teaching materials, but they are more cautious about using it for grading and providing feedback to students.

These insights suggest that while faculty are engaging with AI, there are still many challenges and concerns that institutions need to address to facilitate effective and ethical AI integration in higher education.

This survey complements the DEC's 2024 Global AI Student Survey to provide a holistic understanding of AI's impact on higher education.

Why does owning the AI stack matter?

ibl.ai is the agentic AI platform where you own all the code and the data. You self-host the entire stack inside your own perimeter, run it model-agnostic across any LLM and switch anytime, and pay by usage with no per-seat pricing — so you can deploy anywhere: your cloud, on-premise, GovCloud, or fully air-gapped.

  • You own all the code and the data

    Full source code under a perpetual license, running on your infrastructure. Not API access to someone else's platform — the stack itself is yours.

  • Model-agnostic

    Run any LLM — Claude, GPT, Gemini, Llama, Command, or your own fine-tune — and switch providers without rewriting the platform.

  • No per-seat pricing

    Usage-based billing against a budget cap you set. Cost tracks what your organization actually uses, not how many people you employ.

  • Deploy anywhere

    Your cloud, your VPC, on-premise, GovCloud, or a fully air-gapped network with no outbound connectivity.

1.6M+ users across 400+ organizations run the platform this way, including NVIDIA, MIT, and Syracuse University.

ibl.ai is family-owned and operated from New York, NY — a U.S.-headquartered, domestically-owned long-term partner, not a vendor that sells licenses and moves on.

See the ibl.ai AI Operating System in Action

Discover how leading universities and organizations are transforming education with the ibl.ai AI Operating System. Explore real-world implementations from Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and users from 400+ institutions worldwide.

View Case Studies
Work with our team

Pilots, deployment, and full ownership

Most enterprise engagements are one-time, not subscriptions. You integrate ibl.ai with your own data, deploy it on your own infrastructure, and the engineering hours scale with the work — so the price tracks the scope, not your headcount.

Start here

Pilot

from $15K

fixed scope · fixed timeline

A time-boxed proof of value on your real data — not a slide deck.

Best for: Teams that want to see ibl.ai working before committing.

  • Deployed on your infrastructure or our cloud
  • 1–2 production agents wired to a slice of your data
  • One integration (LMS / SIS / SSO / data source)
  • Weekly working sessions with our engineers
  • Pilot fee credits toward a full engagement
Scope a pilot
Most common

Integration & Deployment

$25K – $80K

one-time · not a subscription

Full deployment integrated with your data and systems. Engineering hours scale with scope.

Best for: Organizations rolling ibl.ai out across a department, campus, or business unit.

  • Platform deployed in your VPC, on-prem, or air-gapped
  • Integrated with your data + identity (SSO / SAML)
  • Multiple custom agents built to your workflows
  • Engineering hours proportional to scope
  • You own the data · run any LLM you choose
Plan a deployment
Full ownership

Codebase Transfer + Custom AI Engineering

Six figures

perpetual license · you own the stack

We transfer the full source code. You own and self-host the entire platform — outright.

Best for: Government, defense, and enterprises that require perpetual ownership and sovereignty.

  • Complete source-code transfer + perpetual license
  • Dedicated AI engineering team on your roadmap
  • Custom agents, models, and integrations to spec
  • Air-gapped capable · zero vendor lock-in
  • Family-owned, New York–based long-term partner
Talk about ownership
You own the code and data Run any LLM — Claude, GPT, Gemini, Llama Family-owned & operated from New York, NY