Lea Pao, a professor of literature at Stanford University, has been experimenting with ways to get her students to learn offline. She has them memorize poems, perform at recitation events, look at art in the real world.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s an effort to reconnect them to the bodily experience of learning, she said, and to keep them from turning to artificial intelligence<\/a> to do the work for them. \u201cThere\u2019s no AI-proof anything,\u201d Pao said. \u201cRather than policing it, I hope that their overall experiences in this class will show them that there\u2019s a way out.\u201d<\/p>\n It doesn\u2019t always work. Recently, she asked students to visit a local museum, look at a painting for 10 minutes, and write a few paragraphs describing the experience. It was a purposefully personal assignment, yet one student responded with a sophisticated but drab reflection \u2013 \u201ctoo perfect, without saying anything\u201d, Pao said. She later learned the student had tried to visit the museum on a Monday, when it was closed, and then turned to AI.<\/p>\n As artificial intelligence has upended the way in which students read, learn and write, professors like Pao have been left to their own devices to figure out how to teach in a transformed landscape.<\/p>\n Many faculty members in the hard sciences and social sciences have pointed to the \u201cproductivity boost<\/a>\u201d AI can offer, and the research potential unlocked by its ability to process and analyze vast amounts of data. AI\u2019s most enthusiastic proponents have boasted the technology may help cure cancer <\/a>and \u201caccelerate<\/a>\u201d climate action.<\/p>\n But in fields most explicitly associated with the production of critical thought \u2013 what is collectively referred to as the \u201chumanities\u201d \u2013 most scholars see AI as a unique threat, one that extends far beyond cheating on homework and casts doubt on the future of higher education itself in a fast-approaching, machine-dominated future.<\/p>\n Lea Pao. Photograph: Courtesy Lea Pao<\/p>\n American degrees often cost up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and result in decades of debt and recent years have seen a freefall in public confidence in US higher education. With the potential for AI to increasingly substitute independent thought, a pressing question becomes even more urgent: what exactly is a university education for?<\/p>\n The Guardian spoke with more than a dozen professors \u2013 almost all of them in the humanities or adjacent fields \u2013 about how they are adapting at a time of dizzying technological advancement with few standards and little guidance.<\/p>\n double quotation markWhat is [AI] doing to us as a species?Dora Zhang<\/p>\n By and large, they expressed the view that reliance on artificial intelligence is fundamentally antithetical to the development of human intelligence they are tasked with guiding. They described desperately trying to prevent students from turning to AI as a replacement for thought, at a time when the technology is threatening to upend not only their education, but everything from the stock market<\/a> to social relations<\/a> to war<\/a>.<\/p>\n Most professors described the experience of contending with the technology in despairing terms. \u201cIt\u2019s driving so many of us up the wall,\u201d one said. \u201cGenerative AI is the bane of my existence,\u201d another wrote in an email. \u201cI wish I could push ChatGPT (and Claude, Microsoft Copilot, etc.) off a cliff.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI now talk about AI with my students not under the framework of cheating or academic honesty but in terms that are frankly existential,\u201d said Dora Zhang, a literature professor at the University of California, Berkeley. \u201cWhat is it doing to us as a species?\u201d<\/p>\n A \u2018soulless\u2019 education<\/p>\n AI criticism \u2013 or \u201cdoomerism\u201d, as the technology\u2019s proponents view it \u2013 has been mounting across sectors. But when it comes to its impact on students, early<\/a> studies<\/a> point<\/a> to potentially catastrophic effects on cognitive abilities and critical thinking skills.<\/p>\n Michael Clune, a literature professor and novelist, said that already, many students have been left \u201cincapable of reading and analyzing, synthesizing data, all kinds of skills\u201d. In a recent essay, he warned that colleges and universities rushing to embrace the technology were preparing to \u201cself-lobotomize<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Ohio State University, where he teaches, has begun requiring<\/a> every freshman to take a class in generative AI and pitched itself as the first \u201cAI fluent\u201d university, pledging to embed AI \u201cacross every major<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cNo one knows what that means,\u201d Clune said of the plan. \u201cIn my case, as a literature professor, these tools actually seem to mitigate against the educational goals I have for my students.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s the crux of what many professors in the humanities fear: that technology that may well be a cutting-edge tool in other fields could spell the end of their own.<\/p>\n Michael Clune. Photograph: Courtesy Michael Clune<\/p>\n Alex Karp, the Palantir cofounder and CEO, stoked those anxieties when he said in a recent interview that AI will \u201cdestroy humanities jobs<\/a>\u201d. On the other hand, Daniela Amodei, Anthropic\u2019s president and co-founder \u2013 who was a literature major \u2013 said<\/a> the opposite: that \u201cstudying the humanities is going to be more important than ever\u201d.<\/p>\n A number of tech<\/a> and finance<\/a> companies have recently said that they are looking to hire humanities majors for their creativity and critical thinking skills. Indeed, enrollment data at some universities suggests that the long-struggling humanities<\/a> might have begun to see a resurgence in the age of AI, with early signs<\/a> pointing to a reversal in decades-long decline in English majors in favor of Stem ones.<\/p>\n Some caution that the humanities will survive \u2013 but as a province of the few. When he predicted the end of the humanities, Karp assured that there would be \u201cmore than enough jobs\u201d for those with vocational training. Indeed, several professors spoke about concerns that AI will exacerbate a widening divide<\/a> in US higher education and that small numbers of elite students will have access to a more traditional, largely tech-free liberal arts education, while everyone else has a \u201cdegraded, soulless form of vocational training administered by AI instructors\u201d, said Zhang.<\/p>\n \u201cI fully expect that we will start seeing a kind of bifurcation in education,\u201d said Matt Seybold, a professor at Elmira College in New York, who has written critically about \u201ctechnofeudalism<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Many professors talked about keeping the technology out of the classroom as a battle already lost. As many as 92% of students have reported resorting to the technology in their school work, recent surveys<\/a> show, and the numbers are rapidly increasing even as growing numbers express concerns about the technology\u2019s accuracy and the integrity of using it. Reliance on AI among faculty is also on the rise, with observers pointing to the dystopian possibility that the college experience may soon be reduced to AIs grading AI-generated homework \u2013 \u201ca conversation between two robots<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir, during the AIPCon conference in Palo Alto, California, in March 2025. Photograph: Bloomberg\/Getty Images<\/p>\n Some universities have adopted AI detection software to catch artificially generated work; others prohibit faculty from directly accusing students of having used AI \u2013 as they can often be wrong<\/a>.<\/p>\n Professors said they resorted to oral interrogations, handwritten notebooks, and class participation for grading purposes. Some require students to submit transparency statements describing their work process. Others have reportedly injected random words<\/a> like \u201cbroccoli\u201d and \u201cDua Lipa\u201d into assignments to confuse learning models \u2013 exposing students who did not even read the prompts before pasting them into AI.<\/p>\n Many professors spoke of their frustration at having to sift through students\u2019 artificially generated homework. \u201cIt creates hours of additional labor,\u201d echoed Danica Savonick, an English professor at the State University of New York Cortland. \u201cAnd makes me feel like a cop.\u201d<\/p>\n Some allow students to use AI for research \u2013 to a point. Karl Steel, an English professor at Brooklyn College, said that AI has helped make students\u2019 presentations richer and more interesting \u2013 but that while they may use it to prepare, he has them speak from minimal notes and stand in front of a photo of a text they annotated by hand. He also assigns written responses to texts only after the class has discussed them. \u201cI suppose they could use their phones to record the conversation, feed a transcript into a chatbot, and produce a paper that way,\u201d he said. \u201cBut that is more trouble, I think, than most students would take.\u201d<\/p>\n Left to their own devices<\/p>\n Many universities\u2019 administrations are embracing AI for instruction, research, and evaluation. In some cases, AI has guided decisions<\/a> about which programs to cut at times of austerity in the education sector.<\/p>\n More than a dozen universities have partnered<\/a> with OpenAI on a $50mi initiative that the company has said will \u201caccelerate research progress and catalyze a new generation of institutions equipped to harness the transformative power of AI\u201d. California State University<\/a> has joined several of the world\u2019s largest tech companies to \u201ccreate an AI-powered higher education system\u201d, as the university put it. Multiple universities have introduced AI majors and masters.<\/p>\n The plans are lofty but offer little guidance on what professors are supposed to do with students who can\u2019t read more than a couple paragraphs at a time or turn in essays generated in seconds by a machine. Left largely to themselves, some are trying to articulate clearer lines around AI use, and organize a more coordinated effort against its encroaching dominance.<\/p>\n Last year, the American Association of University Professors, which represents 55,000 faculty nationwide, published a report <\/a>warning that universities were adopting the technology \u201cuncritically\u201d and with little transparency. Some<\/a> university<\/a> unions<\/a> have begun incorporating protections against AI in their contracts to establish oversight mechanisms and give faculty greater input \u2013 and to protect their intellectual property from feeding machines that may soon take their jobs.<\/p>\n But a lot of organizing against AI remains informal and word-of-mouth, with faculty-led initiatives like the website Against AI<\/a>, which offers resources to those trying to shield students from the intellectual ravages of outsourcing elements of their education to a machine.<\/p>\n \u201cMaterials here are intended as solidarity solace for educators who might find themselves inventing wheels alone while their administrators, trustees, and bosses unrelentingly hype AI,\u201d reads the website, which offers a list of assignment ideas<\/a> to mitigate AI use \u2013 from oral exams<\/a>, to requirements students submit photographic evidence <\/a>of their notes, to analog journals<\/a>.<\/p>\n Many of the professors interviewed by the Guardian said they ban AI in their classrooms altogether \u2013 but recognize their hardline approach is discipline-specific.<\/p>\n Megan McNamara, who teaches sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz and created a guide<\/a> for faculty across disciplines to deal with AI-related academic misconduct, noted that \u201ccultural\u201d differences in the humanities versus Stem disciplines, or in qualitative social sciences versus quantitative ones, tend to shape faculty members\u2019 responses to students\u2019 use of AI.<\/p>\n \u201cI think that\u2019s just a function of one\u2019s individual relationship with writing\/reading\/critical analysis,\u201d she wrote in an email.<\/p>\n double quotation markThese companies are giving these technological tools away partly because they\u2019re hoping to addict a generation of studentsEric Hayot<\/p>\n Several professors spoke of using the issue as an opportunity to get students to think critically about technology.<\/p>\n When she suspects someone has used AI, McNamara talks to them about it, treating the incident as an \u201copportunity for growth, restorative justice, and enhanced authenticity in student-instructor relationships\u201d, she said.<\/p>\n Eric Hayot, a comparative literature professor at Penn State University, said he tries to convince his students that tech companies are trying to make them \u201chelpless\u201d without their product.<\/p>\n \u201cThese companies are giving these technological tools away partly because they\u2019re hoping to addict a generation of students,\u201d Hayot told the Guardian. \u201cThis is part of every single class I teach now, talking to students about why I\u2019m not using AI, why they shouldn\u2019t use AI.\u201d<\/p>\n \u2018We can decide that we want to be human\u2019\u2019<\/p>\n Several professors noted that they have also begun to see mounting discomfort from students against the technology \u2013 and technology\u2019s dominance in their lives overall.<\/p>\n Clune, the Ohio State professor, said students have become more curious about his flip phone, which he started using after realizing his smartphone was \u201cdestroying\u201d his attention.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the current crop of gen Z students are seeing that they are the guinea pigs in this giant social experiment,\u201d said Zhang, the Berkeley professor.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s a broader and increasing sense from students that something is being stolen from them,\u201d echoed Seybold, the Elmira College professor.<\/p>\n Seybold pointed to students\u2019 mounting disillusion with tech more broadly. Those who are rejecting AI, he added, are often driven by environmental concerns, and suspicion of companies they view as partially responsible for shrinking democracies and a more violent world.<\/p>\n In Michigan, for instance, that has spurred activism. The University of Michigan recently announced plans<\/a> to contribute $850m toward a datacenter to provide AI infrastructure<\/a> in collaboration with the Los Alamos National Laboratory \u2013 at a time when it is cutting funds for arts and humanities research and on the heels of anti-war protests on campus. A spokesperson for the university said that the planned facility would be smaller and consume less energy than a \u201ctypical datacenter\u201d.<\/p>\n As pushback grows, so does an emphasis on those intrinsically human qualities that differentiate people from machines \u2013 the very qualities a humanistic education seeks to nurture.<\/p>\n \u201cThere\u2019s kind of defeatism, this idea that there\u2019s no stopping technology and resistance is futile, everything will be crushed in its path,\u201d said Clune, the Ohio State professor. \u201cThat needs to change \u2026 We can decide that we want to be human.\u201d<\/p>\n That idea has also been key to Pao\u2019s approach to teaching in the age of AI.<\/p>\n \u201cYou plant seeds and you hope,\u201d Pao said, of efforts that at times feel like fighting windmills. \u201cYou hope that in the long term you\u2019re helping them become happy human beings, who are able to take a walk, and experience things, and describe things for themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Lea Pao, a professor of literature at Stanford University, has been experimenting with ways to get her students…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":527099,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[62,276,277,49,48,61],"class_list":{"0":"post-527098","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-artificial-intelligence","8":"tag-ai","9":"tag-artificial-intelligence","10":"tag-artificialintelligence","11":"tag-ca","12":"tag-canada","13":"tag-technology"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527098","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=527098"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/527098\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/527099"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=527098"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=527098"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=527098"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}