Are you editing your writing to avoid sounding “too AI”?
People are. Students are. Surely, this is a red flag that should concern us all?!
Over a year ago, I shared four student personas from a small research piece on student perspectives of AI in assignment work. There was the over-the-shoulder user, quietly using AI but hiding it. The discombobulated student who is genuinely confused but wants to do the right thing. The AI opponent who is frustrated and disillusioned by watching others use AI freely with no apparent consequences. The conflicted guilty student who is plagued with anxiety and compares everything they now do to everything they did before AI existed. Anecdotally, we could now add the student who edits their own work to ensure it does not come across as AI-generated (examples in this Augmented Educator post).
We did this – not GenAI!
Fast forward to today, how much clarity have we offered students since then? Very little, I would argue! Worse, I actually believe we have compounded the emotional turmoil represented in the personas and it is more widespread (beyond students to educators and into industry).
Instead of clarity, what has unfortunately developed is what I can only describe as a horrible incentive to pull people down over their use of GenAI. Does a person’s use of GenAI make them somehow inferior, somehow indecent, a scapegoat to be attacked? And if so, what have we offered in the way of guidance and clarity on what level of GenAI use has been deemed acceptable? If the answer is none, is that realistic?
Overall, I unfortunately believe we have let a toxic environment develop in education and beyond. We may ask people to “disclose” their use of AI but note the negative connotation of that word alone. James Lawless openly shared his use of GenAI in the Irish Times recently when spotlighting the aiready.ie initiative and was met with both praise and ridicule. Granted, public figures will always receive mixed responses, but this is happening to everyday educators (those still brave enough to share). If such ridicule is what openness about GenAI use looks like, what message does it send to students? Are we creating a space where they feel safe to be honest about how they are using GenAI? I think not! And that means educators need to work extra hard to create that space with their learners (no surprises that the burden falls on individuals in practice!)
Prestige, Control, Fear?
I read the negative comments on various platforms towards other professionals, I can’t help but wonder whether one of the deepest anxieties driving all of them is that we can no longer identify individual prestige. We can no longer easily distinguish and rank top students or talented employees (or ourselves). I wonder if this loss of control has pushed the level of judgment and the attacks on others to what I perceive to be an all-time high, which I am finding deeply sad.
Reality?
The personas I identified in 2024 are no longer a student problem. They mimic what I believe is happening across the profession itself. Educators and professionals feel like they must hide their use of GenAI. Some are doing audits of their original work to ensure others do not think THEIR work was created by GenAI. There are multiple articles highlighting the risk of GenAI on cognition and well-being – but I am now more concerned by how educators and professionals are treating each other. Do our students have any hope when this is the impact GenAI is having on us? Educators and professionals are publicly shaming others for how they engage with GenAI.
Generosity and Respect
I do not think people are simply being unkind for the sake of it. I believe it all stems from fear and, ironically, from concern over the long-term impact of GenAI. But, we cannot attempt to develop guidelines for students (or each other) if we hold so much contention towards each other over varying opinions of acceptable or unacceptable use of GenAI. We also cannot ask students to be open about their use of GenAI if we cannot extend that same generosity or respect to each other.
So before the next negative thought or the next eye-roll or the next dismissive comment crosses our minds – I think it important we ask ourselves why we feel the need to publicly call a person out for their use of GenAI and if there are more constructive ways forward. Could we, for example, accept and acknowledge that there is no clear cut right or wrong when it comes to the use of GenAI? Could we, for example, seek to understand the person’s perspective rather than seek signs of GenAI? Could we acknowledge that there simply is not enough evidence to support or reject the use of GenAI outright – and that each person is entitled to use or not use GenAI without judgement? Could we avoid negative public comments altogether (perhaps too much to ask of society as a whole, but should we not expect this of ourselves as educators )?