“Because of the ubiquity of AI technology, students will likely be using it persistently outside the classroom in their personal lives. The humanities classroom must be a place where these tools for offloading the task of genuine expression are forbidden—stronger, where their use is shunned, seen as a faux pas of the deeply different norms of a deeply different space.”
[“Die” by Tony Smith]
Bans on the use of AI by students were described as “madness” by D. Graham Burnett (Princeton) in a widely circulated article in The New Yorker (see this post). But Fritts thinks that universities should seriously consider this “radical response.” She says:
Preserving art, literature and philosophy will require no less than the creation of an environment totally and uncompromisingly committed to abolishing the linguistic alienation created by AI, and reintroducing students to the indispensability of their own voice.
Fritts has been serving on a pair of committees her university has convened for the purposes of responding to artificial intelligence, especially its use by students. In thinking about her role on such committees, and the role of humanists in general on them, she suggests that it can a place to join together and push for that “deeply different space”:
This is precisely where humanities faculty on AI committees can make a difference: these radical policies will never be given the time of day by university administrators unless we in these disciplines can present a united front regarding the true aim and importance of a humanities education. It is risky, I acknowledge, to admit that our departments are not in the business of producing new products or supplying students with expertise that will increase their earning potential after college. But at a time when higher-education funding is on the chopping block, the prospect of AI will make the alternatives even riskier. If our deans and boards of directors think that our primary goal is to produce—arguments, manuscripts, essays—then the ways in which we are deskilled and de-personed by AI will have no obvious negative impact on meeting these objectives.
Humanities faculty on AI committees must resolve to be honest about what is at stake in these policies. We must not shirk our own duties of authentic self-expression, settling for a watered-down compromise that seems humbler, safer or more “serious.” If AI is allowed to expand its presence in the humanities classroom, I will put my money on the bleakest predictions of education prognosticators. Given what is on the near horizon, it seems to me that, even in the riskiest setting, we stand to lose relatively little by being bold and honest about the true nature of our work.
You can read the full piece here.
(via Frank Cabrera)