As I entered the final week of my summer online gen ed seminar at RooseveltU called “Humans & Nature,” I wrote the following note to my students in our Writing Workshop discussion forum. Their final assignment was to compose a Creative Nature Essay of approximately five pages in which they reflect on their personal connection (or lack thereof) to the natural world and discuss at least two of our required readings. The instructions for the assignment are appended below.
On the subject of possibly giving in to the temptation to use ChatGPT4 or any other AI-based tool to draft or edit your Creative Nature Essay, your nature outing reflections, or any and all posts to our discussion forums in Blackboard . . .
First, and I can’t say this strongly enough: don’t do it!
The writing you do for this key assignment in our class, from the brainstorming to the drafting to the revision to the final editing stage, must be your own. I say this for many reasons, but most importantly these:
- I don’t care what a chatbot thinks about nature, humanity, and our course readings. I want to know what you think about it. The only way you can do that is through your own thoughts and words, not a AI robot’s.
- Using AI to assist your writing might seem efficient and fast, and thus far easier (sorta kinda) than doing your own hard work. But I’m not interested in reading things that are efficient and easy and quick. The only way you can grapple with what you know and think is to go through the difficult and, yes, sometimes painful process of writing, reflecting, reconsidering, and rewriting. That’s how we learn and grow.
- AI-generated text might use a lot of big words and be structured in a superficially logical way and thus sound knowledgeable, but it’s usually boring, predictable, and highly mechanical. It lacks soul and feeling. It’s often embarrassingly cliché. It’s pretty much devoid of humor or wit. In short — it’s not good writing.In fact, it often sucks, as I found out recently when I asked ChatGPT to write an urban nature poem set on Chicago’s South Side.The result was indeed poetry — but of the doggerel variety.
- Most profs can spot this kind of seemingly-good-but-actually-bad writing a mile away, because we’re read thousands upon thousands of papers, emails, blog posts, and discussion board entries by college students over years (in my case, decades) of teaching, and I have a very good sense of the normal range of writing ability in undergraduates.
- Last but not least: using AI to write a discussion board post, a term paper, a creative essay, a song, a love letter, etc. is technically and quite obviously plagiarism, and thus academically dishonest.
Lately I’ve been thinking quite a bit about the 1968 movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was based on the novel of the same title by Arthur C. Clarke. The film is slowly paced, even ponderous, but complex and and somewhat inscrutable; consequently, people usually love it (me) or hate it (the rest of my family). Notably, pretty much everyone agrees that the best character in the movie is an AI-powered supercomputer, who (which?) is truly one of the great villians in movie history: HAL 9000, the all-powerful guidance computer system aboard the interstellar spacecraft “Jupiter.”
HAL was developed by computer scientists at the University of Illinois in 1992 and represents state of the art computational speed and acumen circa 2001, or so the story goes. As the quintessential embodiment of Artificial Intelligence, HAL carries on deep conversations with the human crew members of the spaceship, which is on a secret and important mission (about which we don’t know hardly anything).
A key plot point of the story is that HAL goes haywire: it becomes concerned that the human crew leaders falsely suspect it of malfunction, and thus are jeopardizing completion of the ship’s mission. So HAL, since it controls everything on the ship, goes on a killing spree, eliminating the crew one by one. Eventually the mission leader, Dave, is the only one left. Iin this scene, he’s outside the main ship in a small “pod,” trying to dock with the main ship and return safely.
2001 was a prescient story about, among many other things, the profound and often unforeseen dangers of technology and, more specifically, the possibility that AI could pose a danger to those who created it, by dint of its acquiring various aspects of human intelligence and, by extension, behavior.
In the decades since 2001 was released in 1968, computer technology and AI research has increased exponentially and at shocking speed. 2022/23 will go down in history as an important milestone in the development of this technology, which up until recently had advanced in comparative fits and starts. Right now, in real time, we’re witnessing an explosion of AI search tools, chatbots, and more — with global tech giants racing each other to advance and market the newest development. All this has had profound consequences for untold aspects of social and economic life, including education.
AI-generated writing is in the process of shaking up the entire education establishment, as students grapple with when to use / not use these powerful tools, and faculty strive to figure out how to account for them in their assignment design. Policies and procedures for using and/or prohibiting AI writing are going to evolve over the next several months and years, as the use of such tech tools grows.
Honestly, I have no idea where this is going to go — but I hope I don’t end up like the professor equivalent of Dave in 2001, begging HAL to let him back on to the ship and then realizing he’s really “up a creek,” as my grandma would say.
Right now, for SUST 101, we’re hewing closely to the title of our course: Humans & Nature. May all of your text for this class be human-generated, warts and all.
Questions and comments are welcome in this thread. Meanwhile, I encourage you to carefully review the Academic Honesty statement in our SUST 101 syllabus: SUST 101 Assignments 2023Sum.pdf
Prof B*
*I certify that 100% of the text above was human generated by me, Michael A. Bryson, a flesh-and-blood person, on 26 June 2023 and slightly updated on 14 Aug 2023. I am not a bot, but a flawed human being who makes various kinds of mistakes and unforced errors on a daily basis, as my wife and daughters would freely attest.
