If you teach on a college campus, you likely have access to a slew of generative AI tools or features that have been quietly embedded in applications you use each day.
This is an excellent analysis and recognition of our current state of AI integration. I just came from giving a talk at a CSU, and my sense is that faculty didn't feel included in these decisions at all, plus they came mid-semester. It's hard to retain agency about AI choices when apps are so stressing aggressively integrating AI without warning or options to switch it off.
If I could edit it now, 2 years later, I would likely keep the same principles and perhaps add a simple right to refusal in both sections-including a right for educators to opt out of tools of data capture. Even that, of course, is now attenuated by a number of factors including the broad usage of “devices” (rather than appropriate narrow and/or air-gapped tools) in IEPs and accommodations. That is not to say that one could or should not still strategically use tech tools for those who need accommodations, but the ability for students and teachers to control for instance those data has been profoundly undermined.
Ultimately, the document can still be useful in a conversation with administrators: ask why a given right is no longer feasible and who was responsible for making it so. The same can be said of the Bill of Rights the White House put out on which this was modeled: within months of its release, the White House had dropped it as a talking point except when they wanted to pat itself on the back and instead moved to bring in contracts for Open AI - and this was the Biden administration, not the Trump administration that has clearly gone all in on a tech-first approach. Had they protected those principles from the beginning with actual regulation we would not be where we are today. Frightening how quickly the industry has moved to undermine what at the time seemed like achievable rights.
Our faculty Senate meetings are hybrid: in-person and Microsoft Teams. Suddenly an AI came from “somewhere” and was used for note-taking. The results were terrible and darkly funny—a bit. We’re keeping a human recorder, but no one asked if the Senate wanted this. (We don’t, says me.) When I voiced concern, and senate leadership asked about it, no clear answer could be found on who initiated this and can it be turned off. Suggestions?
Teams integrated AI throughout their suite some time ago. You'd need to speak to your IT dept. so they can contact Microsoft to see if this can be switched off.
There is a great deal States could do to regulate the kinds of security and privacy terms must be in vendor contracts with public institutions - hopefully someone will come up with decent model legislation, since expecting each State to figure it out is unrealistic.
The specter of AI ubiquity is appalling. The idea that students may be in class chatting with their individual AI, which is listening in on everything and shaping their understanding of the class material, their interactions with the instructor and other students...talk about an unwanted AI upgrade.
This is an excellent analysis and recognition of our current state of AI integration. I just came from giving a talk at a CSU, and my sense is that faculty didn't feel included in these decisions at all, plus they came mid-semester. It's hard to retain agency about AI choices when apps are so stressing aggressively integrating AI without warning or options to switch it off.
Great piece, Marc. For those who are interested in reading the Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights for Education but can’t get past the paywall, I have reproduced it here for reading: https://open.substack.com/pub/kconrad/p/a-blueprint-for-an-ai-bill-of-rights?r=97c7a&utm_medium=ios
If I could edit it now, 2 years later, I would likely keep the same principles and perhaps add a simple right to refusal in both sections-including a right for educators to opt out of tools of data capture. Even that, of course, is now attenuated by a number of factors including the broad usage of “devices” (rather than appropriate narrow and/or air-gapped tools) in IEPs and accommodations. That is not to say that one could or should not still strategically use tech tools for those who need accommodations, but the ability for students and teachers to control for instance those data has been profoundly undermined.
Ultimately, the document can still be useful in a conversation with administrators: ask why a given right is no longer feasible and who was responsible for making it so. The same can be said of the Bill of Rights the White House put out on which this was modeled: within months of its release, the White House had dropped it as a talking point except when they wanted to pat itself on the back and instead moved to bring in contracts for Open AI - and this was the Biden administration, not the Trump administration that has clearly gone all in on a tech-first approach. Had they protected those principles from the beginning with actual regulation we would not be where we are today. Frightening how quickly the industry has moved to undermine what at the time seemed like achievable rights.
Our faculty Senate meetings are hybrid: in-person and Microsoft Teams. Suddenly an AI came from “somewhere” and was used for note-taking. The results were terrible and darkly funny—a bit. We’re keeping a human recorder, but no one asked if the Senate wanted this. (We don’t, says me.) When I voiced concern, and senate leadership asked about it, no clear answer could be found on who initiated this and can it be turned off. Suggestions?
Teams integrated AI throughout their suite some time ago. You'd need to speak to your IT dept. so they can contact Microsoft to see if this can be switched off.
Thank you, Marc. I will ask.
Thanks for sharing SECURE! My name is Mark A. Bassett, not Charles Bassett. I work at Charles Sturt University. Thank you.
There is a great deal States could do to regulate the kinds of security and privacy terms must be in vendor contracts with public institutions - hopefully someone will come up with decent model legislation, since expecting each State to figure it out is unrealistic.
The specter of AI ubiquity is appalling. The idea that students may be in class chatting with their individual AI, which is listening in on everything and shaping their understanding of the class material, their interactions with the instructor and other students...talk about an unwanted AI upgrade.