The Battle over AI: ChatGPT vs Academia
“The use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to complete an assignment or exam is prohibited unless students have a written statement from the course instructor granting permission.” — Columbia Business School Policy on Generative AI
Across the US, schools are setting their policies for AI usage, and often missing the mark. The example above comes from Columbia, but is similar to many others. By taking a middle ground approach to using AI and leaving the decision up to professors, schools are missing an opportunity to integrate digital literacy into the core of their curriculums. Opinions on AI may vary, from a miracle tool to the end of life as we know it, but one thing seems clear: AI is here, and here to stay. Thus, if the purpose of higher institutions of learning is to prepare students for future success in the workforce, and the world, ignoring the realities of AI fails to fulfill this mission thereby also failing students.
Since last year, when generative AI came into the public sphere it has not stopped taking the professional world by storm. The implications of falling behind will be devastating as AI is rapidly becoming a must have skill, not something that is a nice to have niche. Even when adoption occurs, merely understanding use cases for AI will not be enough. Don Allen Stevenson III, a digital artist, was once a highly sought out specialist in his industry called upon largely for film animations. With the onset of AI, and AI generated image tools, the expertise he has crafted over decades of his career has rapidly become moot. Instead of painstakingly adding in animation post production, anyone with an IPhone can now create a product that looks professionally produced. Stevenson’s craft will soon be impossible to make a living at. What once took a skilled craftsman weeks to prepare can now be done in hours, if not minutes, using AI. When compensation had previously been based on difficulty and length of a project, something that now takes 1 hour to create cannot be priced at the same rate as something that takes two weeks — even if the product delivered has not changed.
For Don Allen Stevenson III, who was an early adopter of AI within animation, the implications have been life changing. He has recognized the fundamental need to change, to adapt his career to go beyond AI capabilities. In order to do so, he not only has to understand what and how to use AI, but in which spaces AI is not sufficient. Now, he no longer works as an artist, but is making his living as a consultant and through speaking engagements. His ability to pivot required a greater depth of understanding on the larger picture of the technology. By recognizing how AI will replace human capabilities within his industry, largely due to his own use of the tools in real world applications, he was able to adapt and find a new niche.
Unlike universities, Stevenson did not hide behind what worked in the past waiting until he had to change, instead he acted proactively undertaking a successful personal transformation. He is now better prepared for the future, and is once again acting at the forefront of his industry. By failing to promote this type of integration of AI into courses and the way the students are taught, university leadership is not preparing students to enter the workforce leaving them vulnerable to negative consequences like job insecurity.
Simply adding a one off course on AI into the curriculum is not enough either. Students need to understand how to work with AI, how to use it critically and to add value to their work — something that can only be learned by doing.
Critics may argue that art and animation is particularly vulnerable, but critical thinking and AI adoption is a vital skill in all industries. 78% of C-suite leaders say they use AI within their businesses today, with 98% saying they think their business would benefit from it. With that, high paying jobs like Prompt Engineering are rapidly popping up. Suddenly, it is possible to make six figures annually doing a job that did not exist a year ago. Looking towards the future, some experts believe that in a few more years most people will have to integrate prompt engineering into their jobs. This skill is not a niche, but something that will become the expectation, much like using Microsoft Office is today.
University leaders may argue that plagiarism is of the utmost concern, and that a desire for academic integrity must come first. Yet, plagiarism was rampant before generative AI, and data shows it has not changed much since. Before chatbots, up to 70% of students said they’d engaged in some sort of cheating within the last month. In 2023, this percentage stayed about the same. Perhaps too, the problem is not student behavior in using AI, but with antiquated assignments themselves. Is it really that important to have students memorize facts to take a multiple choice test anymore? Cheating is wrong, and can degrade academic achievement, but so is failing to prepare students to enter a rapidly changing workforce due to the legacy of academia.
