Cornell Professors Debate AI's Role: Savior or Threat to Education?

AI in Academia: A House Divided

Artificial intelligence is shaking up classrooms, and Cornell professors are wrestling with how to respond. Some see AI as a tool for enhanced learning, while others fear it's a shortcut that undermines critical thinking. The debate highlights a larger question: What is the purpose of a university in the age of intelligent machines?

What Happened

A recent roundtable discussion at Cornell, titled “Using AI in Humanities Research,” brought together faculty from various departments to share their perspectives on AI's impact. Professor Jessica Ratcliff, from Science & Technology Studies, expressed strong reservations. She's so concerned that she co-founded a group called “A-Why?” to address the ethical and practical challenges posed by AI in academia.

Ratcliff plans to change her assignments to rely less on papers and more on in-class exams. This is a direct response to students potentially using generative AI to write essays. She believes memorization of facts will become crucial again, given AI's unreliability with factual information. On the other hand, Professor Jan Burzlaff from Jewish Studies is optimistic, viewing AI as a "sparring partner" that can deepen education if used thoughtfully.

The Optimist's View

Burzlaff believes AI can make students more aware of their own thinking processes. By seeing what tasks come easily to a machine, students can better appreciate human nuance. In his spring course, students will analyze Holocaust survivor testimonies using AI tools and then critique the machine's interpretations. The goal, he says, is to teach discernment, not prohibition.

Burzlaff cautions against a "one-size-fits-all" policy regarding AI, emphasizing that different fields will be impacted in diverse ways. He argues that banning AI outright is too simplistic. Instead, universities should focus on fostering “slow thought, uncertainty, and the shared work of meaning-making.”

The Skeptic's Stance

Professor Daniel Susser, from Information Science, is firmly in the skeptical camp. He argues that policing AI use is nearly impossible. His strategy involves structuring his courses to minimize AI's appeal. Like Ratcliff, he plans to increase the use of in-class exams to discourage students from relying on AI for assignments.

Susser understands the temptation to use ChatGPT but worries about the long-term consequences. He believes that students who avoid practicing hard skills will ultimately be at a disadvantage. He acknowledges the difficulty of prioritizing long-term interests over short-term gains, but stresses the importance of building skills through practice.

Engineering a Solution

Professor Hadas Ritz from Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, focuses on academic honesty. She encourages students to use any resources they want for homework, but insists on transparency. Students must cite all sources, including AI tools, used to complete assignments. Ritz believes homework is an opportunity to learn, and students who bypass this process are only hurting themselves.

Ritz notes that the engineering field is rapidly changing due to AI. She urges caution, emphasizing the need to understand what AI can and cannot do reliably. Comparing AI to a calculator that sometimes gets the answer wrong, Ritz stresses the importance of critical thinking and the ability to discern truth from error.

Our Take

Cornell's diverse responses to AI reflect a broader tension in higher education. While some professors embrace AI's potential to enhance learning, others fear its impact on critical thinking and academic integrity. The key takeaway is that AI policy needs to be nuanced and adaptable to different disciplines. A blanket ban is unlikely to be effective, but neither is uncritical acceptance.

Why It Matters

The decisions made by universities regarding AI will have far-reaching consequences. If AI is used responsibly, it could revolutionize education, making learning more personalized and accessible. However, if it is used carelessly, it could undermine the value of a university degree. The challenge is to harness AI's power while preserving the core values of higher education: critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and a commitment to truth.