Caroline Turner, Opinions Editor

I started Monday, September 14^th with an email from UNCG’s ITS department rolling out and announcing SpartanAI, a new initiative to give students, faculty, and staff at our institution access to multiple AI models. 

This is not a lone experience. We all received that email, and I’m sure that we all had varying reactions to the email itself. I’ve heard from other students, both undergraduates and graduates, that this is a shocking development for the university. I’ve heard from others that this will be the next step to prepare students for life beyond the university by helping them cultivate skills that we’ll all need as AI continues to grow into a regularly used infrastructure. 

I, personally, am torn. 

When AI first gained traction, I was teaching high school. I had issues with students submitting work that was clearly AI generated, though it was easy to spot. As I moved back to the university as a PhD student and started teaching college courses again, I knew that AI was something I would have to continue to check the pulse for. It was getting better, though it’s never been perfect. And I figured I should, at the very least, give it a chance. See what this program was, see what it could do. 

I started using it for my own, small tasks—emails, outlining, making a schedule for my day—things that I felt could be done without the concern of using it to create ideas that I could and should come up with. 

Since then, my AI usage has expanded a bit. I’ve used it to discuss readings and understand concepts that felt lost in scholarly articles. I’ve used it to brainstorm ideas. But even then, I felt torn. 

I don’t describe myself as pro-AI or anti-AI. I am perplexed-AI. 

I can understand the importance of learning how the systems work. Experiencing AI when it doesn’t quite have all the answers and hallucinates people, quotes, events, etc. is part of the learning process. I also know that there have been times where AI has created something, and I’ve used it to think about what works and what doesn’t. And, of course, there have been times where AI has created something that fulfills the requirements that I needed it to, and I can move forward with little to no revision. Still, this takes time, and almost a half-a-dozen prompts and suggestions to get from step one to a send-ready email or a realistic schedule. 

All things considered, I’m concerned with the ways access to AI models can create a system where we become dependent on their help or their creation of anything that can (and should) take significant time, thought, and effort. By giving widespread access, are we creating a future consumer base for these companies after we lose access through the university? 

Learning how and when to use AI takes effort. While the SpartanAI website gives additional context for why the university decided to roll out this effort and pilot the program, it gives little information on using AI responsibly. It lists tasks Spartan AI can be used for and gives a small notice further down the page that states, “AI use for coursework is governed by your instructor’s policies and may be prohibited in some classes.” 

In a society where it is becoming an expectation for us to integrate AI programs into classrooms and daily life, we need more information on how to do it ethically. We need more than a singular comment on checking individual course policies. We need training on how to continue to allow our personal voice to exist in AI-generated content. 

If the university is going to make AI part of students’ education, it has a responsibility to teach them how to use it critically, ethically, and intentionally—and to give instructors the support to establish those boundaries. 

I’m not sure how I’ll incorporate AI into my classroom. I don’t know that I want to, but I do know that it’s an expectation of all instructors to consider AI integration. 

Headline image courtesy of UNCG ITS.