Last weekend, I discussed AI in Education at the National ResearchEd conference in London. One day before, OpenAI announced a new partnership with the Greek government, the Onassis Foundation, and Endeavor Greece: OpenAI for Greece. The press release, of course, reads like a celebration. Plato and Aristotle are invoked, Greece is presented as a pioneer in the “Intelligence Age,” and a Memorandum of Understanding was signed with the usual fanfare of ministers, CEOs, and solemn handshakes.

However, if you read more carefully, what stands out is not the substance but the marketing. Take the claim that almost 60% of Greek ChatGPT users are under 35. That sounds impressive, but it’s hardly surprising. ChatGPT is overwhelmingly popular among younger people everywhere. It’s like saying 60% of TikTok users are under 35 – not exactly newsworthy.

Then there’s education, the part I know a bit more about. Greece, along with countries like Estonia, is poised to be one of the first to implement ChatGPT Edu in schools. Ambitious, yes – but the reality is that we still know very little about what AI in classrooms actually does. How does it influence learning? What about bias, factual errors, or the temptation for students to outsource their assignments to a chatbot? The press release highlights productivity, AI literacy, and best practices; however, it does not address serious questions about learning outcomes or inequality. Yet these are crucial: who benefits from such pilots, and who gets left behind? And equally important: how will student data be handled, and what exactly will the tool learn from the students?

The division of roles also raises eyebrows. OpenAI co-designs the training, the Onassis Foundation coordinates implementation, and the government observes. In other words, the commercial actor selling the product is also writing the manual and the disclaimer. Would we accept that model if we were talking about medicine?

And then there’s the second pillar: an AI Accelerator Program for Greek start-ups. Again, plenty of lofty promises – mentorship from OpenAI, international exposure, and compliance workshops. But once more, it feels like Silicon Valley logic being dropped onto a country: a kind of AI nation branding that benefits the companies and investors involved first. Whether it will create sustainable innovation and jobs in Greece itself remains to be seen. It’s possible, but there are no guarantees.

Maybe I sound too negative. However, the real risk is that AI is presented here as a national lifeline: a technology that will simultaneously modernise education, the economy, and the public sector. We know from history that technology rarely delivers such miracles. Without a serious discussion about goals, risks, and safeguards, this risks becoming little more than a polished PR story.

Greece may be the cradle of Western philosophy, but the spirit of Socrates – the relentless questioner – seems absent from this announcement.