Some (very) Initial Thoughts on ChatGPT and Higher Ed
How the Philosophy Classroom Will Change
This article in The Chronicle, “I’m a Student. You Have No Idea How Much We’re Using ChatGPT” (HT JT Turner) prompted me to jot down a few initial thoughts about how AI will be changing higher ed in particular. The issue isn’t just a scholarly exercise for me; I had to deal with AI plagiarism this past semester. For a ton of reasons, I think educators have a responsibility to think through this issue now.
I tend to just accept new technologies when they emerge, and that’s the case for me and ChatGPT as well. It will be a part of society going forward, and as the article points out, it has already pervaded higher ed. No sense in trying to fight it. So the question now is how to outsmart its use and restructure pedagogy around this new reality. It has struck me time and time again when reading articles like the one above that, whatever the specific, defensive, classroom tactics, those who are thinking about this issue are stressing the need for students to learn critical thinking. Whatever skills AI has and will replace, critical thinking can’t be one of them. As a philosopher and professor, this makes me think that the skills we have always emphasized in the philosophy classroom (logic, clarity, precision in writing and speaking, among others) have a fighting change to be recognized, valued, and prioritized much more than they have been. That particular aspect of this change will be a good thing.
Philosophers often take pride in how interdisciplinary and discipline-independent philosophy can be. Part of philosophy’s specialization is learning how to distinguish good arguments from bad arguments, and that’s the kind of skill that just about any discipline uses (and often takes for granted). Engineers make arguments. Biologists make arguments. Historians make arguments. Some of those arguments are good, and some are not so good, and there are well-established criteria for how to sort out the differences.
So the challenge will be creating assignments where 1) it is completely acceptable to use AI in its full capacity, and 2) it is impossible to use AI. For the second category, the (in-person) classroom setting will become ground zero for demonstrating the skills we want to cultivate and evaluate. That means eliminating tech in the classroom, replacing laptops and phones with pen, paper, and speech. Students will need to get more and more comfortable speaking in front of their peers and professors, which will be a social challenge in this post-COVID era. Many professors have noticed a lack of participation in classes compared to pre-quarantine levels, in some cases likely due to students who were used to learning by watching a screen as passive participants. Virtual learning, while necessary in some cases, will continue to be at a severe disadvantage because of the ease, ubiquity, and temptation of AI. The physical classroom will once again be crucial for learning.
I haven’t decided what kind of assignments I will need to create for the fall semester, but I think this is a key moment for anyone whose profession involves intentional, careful thinking about critical thinking, logic, analysis, and many of the skills that philosophers focus on and train for. We have been doing that kind of thing for quite a while, both personally and historically, and for many reasons I think we have something to offer in this fast-moving moment.