Hofstra University recently implemented a student-wide subscription to ChatGPT Edu, and students are rightfully concerned. ChatGPT is arguably at the forefront of the revolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI), being one of the most used or at least most talked-about large language models (LLM). While there is a difference between an LLM and Generative AI, we should be wary of both, especially in academic settings.
As much as I hate using AI personally, it can be a helpful tool for data mapping, spreadsheet making and summarizing. For some students, having help with busy work like this can be beneficial without the tool full-on writing and creating for them. Algorithm based professions have been and always will be supported by emerging technology, but to me, writing, creating and even editing are personal processes, and giving up your part in that is an injustice to the creation and the creator – you. Any type of reliance on this type of AI is a slippery slope for people who don’t know its dangers.
When people think of AI discourse in universities, chances are they think of academic dishonesty – cheating by asking AI to write your papers for you. Academic dishonesty is a huge concern around the implementation of AI in education, but at this point in time, I’d hope most people know better. It’s not always about violating academic dishonesty polices; it’s about academic integrity. Even though students might not be cheating or dodging their assignments, using ChatGPT to do your research for you, compile data or refine paragraphs is a disservice to your education. College is for refining skills, not learning how to make AI do work for you.
“AI is our future,” is another argument in its favor. Sure, AI is a developing tool that will seep into many fields eventually – likely coloring our future careers with its presence – but the dangers of it should not be forgotten in place of convenience.
There is room for emerging technology in our society, but not when it is affecting students’ skills. According to MIT, relying too heavily on AI can lead to increased productivity but decreased motivation. In my opinion, motivation is what keeps us moving toward our personal goals and keeps us engaged in our lives, not sheer performance.
When AI is overtaking your ability to research for yourself and write for yourself, when will it consume your ability to think for yourself as well?
The biggest concern about the extensive use of AI, including Hofstra’s implementation of ChatGPT Edu, is its environmental impact. It is a proven fact that the high energy consumption of running LLM’s and AI models utilizes high amounts of water and emits high levels of greenhouse gases. AI is bad for the environment no matter how you look at it. To posit that the consumer should be absolved of blame in this problem is ignorant.
In this day and age, being a conscientious consumer is part of being a consumer at all. People suggest boycotts on companies for the people and actions they support with their profit all the time. Why should we be lenient when it comes to AI? People should be informed about the environmental effects of AI programs like ChatGPT Edu. And if they are properly informed, then the blame for its usage – and subsequent effect on the environment – must fall partially on the consumer.
In the same way a consumer may make the choice to carpool to avoid more carbon dioxide emissions, people must choose to avoid the use of AI to avoid environmental damage. If the consumer is at all aware of the consequences of running an AI program, they are partially at fault for using it. Companies will be companies, and it is up to the consumer to use their programs responsibly.
Technological developments are inevitable, and we shouldn’t fight them all. However, until the environmental impact is lessened drastically and AI stops being a cause of stunted motivation, I don’t think concerns about its clutches on our population are ridiculous or invalid at all.
