The title of this post is a quote from the position paper issued by a collection of academics in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and the US, working in various disciplines (cognitive science and computer program through cultural history and gender studies), that delivers a vehement critique of AI and AI rhetoric. The quote itself appears late in the essay, on page 17, in response to the ways that university administrators and university unions enthusiastically and uncritically parrot tech companies’ marketing copy for their ‘AI’ products. The full title of the position paper is “Against the Uncritical Adoption of ‘AI; Technologies in Academia.”
Anyway, the statement captures something of what I felt last spring when I watched the CSU board of trustees meeting in which they discussed and approved a $17 million contract with OpenAI to provide an kind of in-house version of ChatGPT for students, faculty, and staff. The contract with OpenAI lasts until next summer, when there is supposed to be some kind of cost-benefit analysis before the CSU determines whether or not to renew its contract. At what cost? Who knows at this point. But one has to ask whether it’s worth it, especially in the face of rising tuition costs.
The primary argument that the CSU uses is that we need to prepare students for the future of work, but that language seems to be largely copy-and-pasted from the press releases of the tech companies themselves. Just look at all those quotations. As the authors of the above paper suggest, we’re actually contributing to the deskilling of students through this uncritical adoption of ChatGPT. I noticed at the end of last year some troubling trends in my students’ growing struggles with writing and with their capacity to complete basic identifications on exams. I wouldn’t blame all of that on AI tools, but the CSU’s approach to ‘AI’ is exacerbating a number of existing problems. With students being as stressed and overworked as they are, technologies that promise to save time and effort become near irresistible.
What worries me now is the recent push at my institution towards “career readiness.” While it is not explicitly wedded to the language of AI tools (at least not yet), my concern is how the emphasis on career preparation will become another avenue to pressure faculty to adopt and integrate AI into curricula and teaching spaces, whether or not they want them. At the same time, I don’t think faculty can just hand-wave away career readiness, as it is something that students are genuinely concerned about and want. That’s why I think it’s important for faculty to try and get ahead of it before it becomes another route for tech companies to penetrate further into the university. Anyway, I’ll have more to say on that topic at some point, but for now I just wanted to put that position paper into circulation, as if offers a very helpful starting point for faculty to respond to the enshittification of higher ed.
Steven A. Ruszczycky, PhD 