The rapid rise of AI integration into our lives this past year has been startling. At all levels of the academy, educational organizations are announcing partnerships with tech companies seemingly without any critical consultation, thoughtful deliberation, or educator input. These expensive alliances are coming at a time of extreme budgetary contraction. Why are universities investing massive amounts in contracts with private companies when budgets are so tight? Who benefits? The call of "Will our students be 'AI' ready?" drowns out the more important question: "is AI ready for our students?" Research shows that Gen AI tools are often "confidently wrong," offer up biased and racist responses, extract a devastating toll on the environment, provide venues for bad actors to exploit vulnerabilities, and harm critical thinking and analytical skills through repeated use and reliance. While some educators talk about "ethical use of AI," we argue that there is no ethical use possible when looking at all parameters. Even before addressing the resultant systemic issues, the tools themselves were created using stolen content and are currently being argued over in 47 legal cases (and counting). Our student artists and writers are in the crosshairs of these ethical issues. AI "helpers" have been inserted into many products without a stated desire or demonstrated need for them. The use cases we are given to convince us to uncritically adopt tools we never asked for are at best offering moderate levels of time-saving "efficiency," and at worst replacing opportunities for actual care and communication with inferior electronic substitutes. Are they actually helping students learn? Or are they instead creating an added layer of obfuscation between a human and the information sources they need, while furthering disinvestment in education and people? In the face of a forced narrative of tech inevitability, we want to give our university community another option: resistance. In the tradition of DIY resistance literature that came before us, we created a zine to provide a voice that goes against the stream of hype and normalization. In "The Roots of this Tree are Rotten!" we explain how we were inspired to look critically at the hype and call out GenAI, especially the way it has been an engine of shoddy substitutes for the things our students actually need: care, support, and mentorship. Instead of giving in to the convenient insistence that "it's not going away," we instead propose ways to resist, opt out, and push back on the narrative that "everyone is using it."
Quiñonez et al. (Mon,) studied this question.