Comment by gchallen
10 hours ago
They have not succeeded in forcing me, yet. But it's sad how many computing faculty apparently can't operate the basic online infrastructure needed to support their courses. Not that universities make it easy for us.
And of course the other serious concern I have with Canvas is that they are likely using all the materials faculty upload to train their AI replacements. Many of my colleagues engage in dark humor about this but I haven't noticed much action.
> they are likely using all the materials faculty upload to train their AI replacements
Instructure (Canvas's developer) partnered with OpenAI last year [1], about a year after KKR and Dragoneer (PE firms) acquired it [2].
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rayravaglia/2025/07/23/instruct...
[2] https://www.pehub.com/kkr-and-dragoneer-complete-4-8bn-take-...
instructure/canvas-lms is open-source -- is there anything preventing universities from hosting it themselves?
Money, skill, liability.
That calculus is about to shift.
I'm sure the engineers at instructure are not capable of building systems that can do that. You give them too much credit.
Former Instructure engineer here. Ive been gone almost 10 years at this point, but some of the best engineers I've ever worked with were at INST.
I'm not sure where your stereotype even comes from, because Canvas is not trivial software. You can see for yourself as it's AGPL and I assume you looked at the code before criticizing it because any good engineer would do that.
I don't care how good you think it is, the fact that it (back when I used to be a TA) would break if two TAs tried concurrently grading different parts of an assignment of a student is bonkers. The workaround for that was to use a Google Sheet document so TAs just looked at the submission in Canvas, then filed in their grades and feedback on the sheet. The issue is that Canvas, as far as I could tell, did not support mass uploads from a csv, so we had a script which would read every entry on the csv, map that to the student's ID and grade them, which made it look like the TA which had generated the API key graded all of the students (and would get all the backlash from poor grades).
I completely agree that it is not trivial software in the worst sense, it tries to do too much, while not being particularly good at any one of those things, and is way too rigid for how diverse the needs of different courses might be even inside a single faculty. And saying "It's AGPL, just self host and add your requirements to it" is not really useful, that would mean way more money and effort than what a university's overworked IT dept. is capable of.
> some of the best engineers I've ever worked with were at INST.
> You can see for yourself as it's AGPL and I assume you looked at the code
Can you look at any codebase and tell me it's written by some of the best engineers and it's not trivial?
I've been using Canvas for years and it's some of the worst written software I've ever used. It's slow, buggy, with an atrocious 2001-era UI. It's a CRUD app that has no excuse for being so cumbersome. I'm not surprised at all that their security is just as bad as the rest of the product.
A bright undergrad could build a superior replacement in a few months, even without AI.
2 replies →
If they're at the level you say, they just might install some AI gizmo like the Vercel employee was accused of, but really let it run amok with write permissions.