Dystopian Harvard professors make AI CLONES of themselves to teach entrepreneurship course that’ll set students back $699
Harvard Business School has launched an eight-week, AI-powered entrepreneurship programme called Foundry, priced at $699, which uses AI "clones" of some of its own professors to guide participants building start-ups. The scheme, running since April, is designed to extend Harvard's entrepreneurship teaching to aspiring founders beyond the roughly 900 MBA students the university admits each year, and has drawn attention for its unusual, and to some, unsettling use of digitally replicated faculty.
The AI avatars, including one modelled on senior lecturer Jeff Bussgang, were trained on professors' own teaching materials but can also draw on wider information when needed, and were developed with avatar company HeyGen. Harvard staff say they were surprised by how positively users responded, reportedly trusting guidance more when it appeared to come from a specific named academic, even though Bussgang himself admits the technology feels somewhat "creepy." According to the New York Times, about 45% of summer-session participants paid for the course themselves, with the rest sponsored by universities, and the programme also includes weekly live sessions with faculty, investors and experienced speakers alongside peer discussion forums.
- Harvard's $699 Foundry course uses AI clones of professors as mentors
- Programme extends entrepreneurship teaching beyond Harvard's MBA students
- Users reportedly trust and prefer the AI avatars despite their "creepy" feel
New here? Start with this
Harvard Business School has launched an eight-week online course called Foundry, which teaches entrepreneurship skills to people trying to build start-ups. What sets it apart is that some of the guidance comes from AI versions of real Harvard professors, built using their own lecture materials and made using avatar technology from a firm called HeyGen. One of the professors involved is senior lecturer Jeff Bussgang.
The course costs $699 and has been running since April. Harvard says it created the programme to reach aspiring entrepreneurs who would never get a place on its highly selective MBA, which admits only around 900 students a year, effectively opening up a version of its teaching to a much wider audience.
The story matters because it touches on a bigger debate about how far universities should go in using AI to replace or supplement real teachers, and whether people can trust or connect with advice that appears to come from an academic but is generated by a computer program.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that Foundry dramatically widens access to Harvard's entrepreneurship expertise beyond the roughly 900 MBA students admitted each year, letting far more aspiring founders benefit from carefully developed teaching materials at a fraction of the cost of a full degree. They point out that participants themselves respond positively, apparently finding guidance more engaging and trustworthy when it is delivered by a recognisable, named academic persona rather than a generic chatbot. Given that live sessions with real faculty, investors and peers remain part of the programme, advocates see the AI clones as a scalable supplement that extends rather than replaces genuine human teaching.
The case against
Critics counter that using digital replicas of professors, even with their cooperation, risks misleading paying users into placing undue trust in a system that is not actually the professor thinking in real time, especially when the technology can draw on broader information beyond its training material. They note that even the professor being cloned describes the experience as somewhat "creepy", suggesting the practice sits uneasily with expectations of authentic academic engagement, particularly at a $699 price point nearly half of participants pay from their own pocket. There is also concern that normalising AI likenesses of educators could set a precedent that erodes the value and accountability associated with direct, personal instruction from named experts.