U.Va. AI Policy Needs Improvement

AI Policies at U.Va.

The AI Task Force was intended to address AI issues, but it didn't establish any actual policies, thus failing to bring about significant change. It's almost unusual not to have used AI during the recent finals season, as many college students use it in some form. AI has infiltrated our lives and has the potential to transform workplaces, government, and schools. Some even believe it can be used to create art. However, faculty members disagree on whether AI use harms or enhances critical thinking, resulting in varied classroom policies. Some students get to vote on their classroom's AI policy, while others simply find a prohibition against AI use at the end of their syllabus.

The problem is that professors are forced to develop their own AI policies without sufficient guidance or structure. The AI Task Force was supposed to solve this, but it didn't create any real policy, so it doesn't offer real solutions. The University needs a standardized, departmental process where professors and students can collaboratively create their own policies and clearly communicate them to students.

AI Task Force Shortcomings

The University AI Task Force has been the primary response to AI use in the classroom. While the McIntire School of Commerce and the School of Data Science have similar bodies, they are based on the Provost’s Task Force. The Task Force's website lacks actionable solutions, with its only report dating back to summer 2023. The information includes surveys of students and faculty about their AI usage, but it's important to remember that the Task Force published it two years ago. Considering the recent rapid advancements in AI, policies from two years ago are insufficient for today's classrooms.

These shortcomings create a difficult situation for students. One year after the Task Force began, many students feel excluded from decisions about AI implementation or elimination in the classroom. Many students are using AI on assignments. Students who don't use AI are at a disadvantage compared to classmates who do. This creates a dilemma for students: whether to cheat or not. This is a policy failure. The Task Force falls short for faculty because it grants professors total autonomy over AI policies but doesn't provide the information and tools needed to effectively use AI in their courses. Faculty are unsure about the Task Force's recommendations and how AI could benefit their courses. Departmentalized policies would allow flexibility by subject, but the task force does not give faculty the toolkit to properly reframe their classroom policies to accommodate AI.

Recommendations

The Task Force does have some merit. The “Guidance for Faculty and Students” section of its website outlines how AI should be used in classrooms and promotes beneficial AI policies. It explains how faculty should integrate AI responsibly and communicate expectations clearly to students. The website also states that students should be involved in creating AI policies to improve the relationship with the technology. However, AI policies are often inconsistent and not influenced by the subject or department. The idea is good, but formal integration into classrooms is missing.

Collaboration and communication are key to controlling AI use in classrooms. The University should establish a clear policy-making process for professors. This process should build on the Task Force's suggestions — involving students, providing professors with AI knowledge, and adapting to the unique nature of courses — but departments should implement a standardized process. Departments should create their own policies based on the different potential of AI in different subjects, so students know what to expect. For example, the English department could use AI for finding literature but not for writing, while the Computer Science department could use it for debugging. This policy would strike a balance between faculty discretion and student realities.

A clear process for creating AI policy would give faculty authority over their syllabi while preventing miscommunication. Students will help create guidelines, so they won't need to worry about AI use. As AI becomes more powerful, the University needs to find new ways to adapt, rather than relying on old data.

The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, a Senior Associate and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached ateb@cavalierdaily.com. The Department of Education rescinded its award to CCS and gave the FEI property to the University instead. The city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough. Hence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.