Landon Block is a junior and opinion editor of political science at Mustang News. The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Mustang Media Group.
Checking the class syllabus at the start of every new quarter looks for three things. The final exam date, the percentage required to win an A, and more recently the professor’s AI policy. Each professor and course is different. I had classes where AI was enthusiastically encouraged, and other classes where it was completely banned.
That’s why I was so surprised to announce that on February 4th, I was detailing my new status as the “nation’s first largest AI-powered public university system” in my inbox. .
For me, I read this as an unprecedented system-wide support for AI tools like ChatGpt.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll immediately take advantage of the free chatgpt-4o subscription with everyone else. At the same time, there appears to be no opinion from teachers that there is a dangerous precedent for attracting students with AI tools.
The Cal State system is unfairly inserted into what should be dynamic from classroom to classroom. Great if a professor wants to encourage the use of AI for his or her own assignments. Great if students decide that the merit is worth $20 a month. I don’t think it’s Cal State’s place to provide students with these tools without meaningful consultation.
The administration has given us more respect to the faculty who make our university as great as that. Textbooks have answers behind them. Relying on it is relying too much on the purpose of learning basic skills.
This is a rude move that undermines the ability of tens of thousands of teachers to implement classroom policies.
Before diving in, I want to make it clear that I understand that profound power AI tools can bring students in. As a minor in ethics, public policy, science and technology, I have been studying AI and its impact on society for the past three years. My research using Cal Poly Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group contributed to reporting on Generated AI in the Entertainment and AI Risk Assessment Framework. And of course, I am a student who used AI tools to help me with my assignments.
Professors deserve to make certain decisions about what is best for their class environment. Yes, some may be sticklers in general about new technology. But we cannot ignore the underlying message. Almost every he professor will tell you: If we rely on AI tools for all our challenges, we have not developed any important skills and $60,000 worth it Employers begin to lose.
One reason I prefer to use the free version of AI tools is that it prevents me from accessing the premium model after a certain amount of use. It reminds me, “Hey, remember that you have the brain and critical thinking skills. You don’t need me for everything.”
It’s like the answer is behind the textbook. Initially, it will use it to check answers and help you when you’re stuck. After a while, it is difficult to resist looking back immediately whenever you face an inconvenience.
The free model acts as a barrier to preventing you coming back again and again, but the free premium subscription offers no external motivation to struggle for a solution.
I’m not against students who use ChatGpt, Claude, or Notebooklm to help bridge the gaps between lectures. I use these tools too. However, I hesitate to encourage students to rely on AI tools to complete all their assignments. Furthermore, I think this presentation undermines the professor’s individual AI policies.
Patrick Lin, director of the Ethics + Emerging Sciences Group and philosophy professor at Cal Poly, told Mustang News that neither his team nor his seemingly faculty nor his faculty were brought into the decision.
“At Cal Poly, we are internationally known for our work in AI and other technical ethics, so it’s a bit daunting to see why CSU doesn’t talk to their experts for free,” Lin said. says he.
An email sent by the California Institute of Teachers also demonstrated resistance to the announcement.
I’m sure CAL state administrators have put their ideas into this decision. Maybe they really believe that giving free access to premium AI tools benefits only students. However, this falls out as AI’s top priority approval, regardless of what individual professors want in the classroom.
Adopting AI at such a large scale also brings about great privacy and environmental concerns. These are real fears I share and can be rewarding, but that is not my main concern today. AI developers need to focus on these issues, and Cal State Management needs to focus on strengthening education.
Simply put, the Cal State system unfairly inserts what should be dynamic from the classroom to the classroom. Great if a professor wants to encourage the use of AI for his or her own assignments. If the student decides for himself, the profit is worth $20 a month. I don’t think it’s Cal State’s place to provide students with these tools without meaningful consultation.
The administration has given us more respect to the faculty who make our university as great as that. Textbooks have answers behind them. Relying on it is relying too much on the purpose of learning basic skills. This is a rude move that undermines the ability of tens of thousands of teachers to implement classroom policies.
