Your Professor Has Been Cloned. Now What?
Digital twins of professors are opening new possibilities for higher education, but they are also raising a much bigger question: Are we using AI to make great teaching more accessible, or to deliver education with fewer professors?
Imagine a student struggling with a difficult concept at 11 p.m. Instead of waiting for office hours, the student opens a conversation with a digital version of their professor. The AI-powered counterpart explains the concept, offers examples, answers follow-up questions, and adjusts its approach until the student understands.
Now imagine that same digital professor delivering lectures to hundreds of students, teaching in multiple languages, or continuing to share its creator's expertise long after the professor has retired.
Depending on whom you ask, this is either an exciting advancement in higher education or a development we should approach with considerable caution.
Digital twins of professors are already being explored at institutions including Imperial Business School, Georgia Tech, and George Mason University. These technologies range from AI-generated faculty avatars delivering instructional content to interactive systems trained on a professor's expertise and teaching materials.
And while the technology is fascinating, the conversations it is generating among higher education thought leaders may be even more interesting.
Making Great Teaching More Accessible
For proponents, digital twins offer an opportunity to extend the reach of exceptional professors beyond the traditional limitations of time, geography, and class size.
A professor can only hold so many office hours, teach so many courses, and respond to so many individual questions. An AI counterpart could make that expertise available around the clock, providing students with personalized explanations and opportunities to revisit difficult material.
At Imperial Business School, faculty have experimented with AI avatars, including a digital representation of Professor David Shrier. At Georgia Tech, Professor David Joyner has used a digital twin to make instructional content easier to produce and update.
For working adults, international students, and learners who need additional support, the possibilities are compelling.
Another group of higher education leaders sees digital twins as a way to give professors more time for the work that matters most. If AI can handle repetitive explanations, routine questions, and certain instructional tasks, faculty could devote more attention to mentoring, facilitating discussions, and helping students apply what they learn.
Experiments at George Mason University have illustrated this possibility. Students appreciated the convenience of AI-generated instructional materials while continuing to value direct interaction with their human professors.
That distinction is important. The promise of digital twins may not be replacing the professor, but making the professor more available in the ways that matter.
But What Happens to the Human Side of Education?
Skeptics see a different set of risks.
Teaching is more than delivering information. Great professors challenge assumptions, recognize potential, encourage intellectual curiosity, and sometimes change the direction of a student's life through a single conversation.
An AI counterpart might explain a concept perfectly, but can it recognize when a student needs encouragement rather than another explanation? Can it replicate the trust, mentorship, and intellectual relationships that make higher education transformative?
Research on faculty attitudes toward synthetic teaching avatars suggests that these concerns are substantial. In a 2025 international study of higher education employees (linked below), participants recognized potential benefits for accessibility and workload while expressing reservations about diminishing human relationships and the implications for academic labor.
There are also complicated questions about ownership. If a university creates a digital twin using a professor's lectures, research, voice, likeness, and teaching methods, who controls it? Can the institution continue using it after the professor leaves? Who is responsible when the AI says something the professor would never say?
These are not merely technical or legal questions. They get at the heart of what it means to be a professor and who owns the intellectual contributions that make a university valuable.
The Question University Leaders Cannot Avoid
For institutional leaders, digital twins introduce an especially consequential tension.
Universities face tremendous pressure to expand access, improve student outcomes, develop new programs, and operate more efficiently. Digital twins could potentially help accomplish all four.
An institution might use AI-powered faculty to make specialized courses financially viable, extend programs into new markets, or provide more individualized academic support without proportionally increasing instructional costs.
But there is a meaningful difference between using technology to make excellent teaching more accessible and using it to deliver education with fewer professors.
Both approaches might improve an institution's financial position. They would not necessarily produce the same student experience.
This is where I think the conversation becomes particularly important.
If digital twins free faculty from repetitive instructional responsibilities, will universities reinvest that time into deeper student engagement? Or will the efficiencies become justification for larger classes, fewer faculty, and less human interaction?
And if students can receive personalized explanations from an AI professor at any hour, what becomes the distinctive value of attending a university in the first place?
Perhaps the answer is that access to information and explanations becomes less valuable as a differentiator, while the human elements of education become more valuable.
Mentorship. Intellectual community. Critical thinking. Relationships. The opportunity to learn alongside people who challenge how we see the world.
These are experiences that universities should be uniquely positioned to provide.
The Future Is About More Than the Technology
The debate over digital twins is sometimes framed as a choice between embracing innovation and protecting traditional teaching. I don't think either position fully captures the opportunity.
A digital twin could be extraordinarily valuable to a student who needs a concept explained five different ways before it clicks. It could make an exceptional professor accessible to learners who would otherwise never have that opportunity. It could also give faculty more time to do the deeply human work that makes teaching rewarding.
But those outcomes are not automatic. They depend on the decisions institutions make about how to deploy the technology, measure its effectiveness, and reinvest the resources it frees up.
The most important question may not be how much teaching AI can take over, but how much better the student experience could become when professors are supported by it.
Digital twins will undoubtedly challenge longstanding assumptions about faculty roles, instructional delivery, and the economics of higher education.
The future of teaching may not come down to whether a professor can have a digital twin. It may come down to whether universities use that digital twin to make the human side of education more valuable, or simply less necessary.
Sources and further reading
These sources offer a mix of actual university implementations, faculty perspectives, and emerging research:
Comments