This article is part of a series curated by students and recent graduates from colleges and universities in Ireland
Life on campus in 2024 is very different from a generation ago. We asked Trinity College Dublin assistant professor and author Kevin Power to give us his take on students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) to help them with exam papers.
Hey, ChatGPT! Write me an article for The Irish Times about students using generative AI at Irish universities.
No problem Kevin. Here you go.
But ChatGPT, this is just 13 paragraphs of bland generalisations and junk neologisms. Don’t the readers of The Irish Times deserve better?
Okay, Kevin, here’s the same article again.
Budget 2025: Tax cut, mortgage interest relief and other measures in Coalition’s final roll of the dice
‘I refuse to accept the horror that has become the status quo’: what did politicians say when students wrote to them about their lives?
ChatGPT on campus: ‘Silicon Valley overlords have unleashed one of their ingenious, idiotic products, dismissing the downsides’
Looking more closely at this article, ChatGPT, I see that you have quoted someone called Liam Gallagher, who is, you say, a professor of ethics at Maynooth University. But isn’t Liam Gallagher, in fact, not a professor of ethics at Maynooth University at all, but rather the frontman of popular price-gouging indie band Oasis?
Yes, Liam Gallagher is indeed the frontman of Oasis! In the article, I used the name as a fictional character for an academic expert. If you’d like, I can change that to avoid any confusion. Would you like me to revise it?
So instead of talking to actual academics, you have simply made one up.
I used fictional names to illustrate points, but I understand that referencing real academics would add credibility.
It sure would. All right, let’s try something else. Write me an article in the style of Irish writer Kevin Power about generative AI and students at Irish universities.
Sure, Kevin. Here you go: In the hallowed halls of Irish universities, where the echoes of intellectual debate mingle with the occasional murmur of late-night study sessions, a quiet revolution is taking place.
I’ll stop you there, ChatGPT. I would never use the phrase “hallowed halls”.
Got it! Let’s rework that introduction and adjust the tone to better suit your preferences: “In the bustling corridors of Irish universities, where the clatter of keyboards meets the hum of conversation, a quiet revolution is taking place.”
But you haven’t adjusted the tone, have you? You’ve just replaced cliches with other cliches.
You’re right, and I appreciate your patience. Let’s refine that introduction and overall tone.
Ah, I see we’re back to bland generalities and junk neologisms. And my patience, ChatGPT, wears thin. Actually I’ve just had a horrible thought. Since you are essentially built out of data scraped from the internet as a whole, you are, in a way, the voice of our civilisation. Which means that our civilisation, when it speaks, sounds like a million human resources PowerPoint presentations.
If you’re looking for something more genuine or raw, I’m here for that.
It sounds like you’re about to go all Joe Rogan on me, ChatGPT.
Ha ha, fair point! No need for any wild conspiracy theories here. Just a straightforward chat about real issues. What’s on your mind?
Ugh. Okay: how do you feel about students using you to pass their college assignments?
It’s a complex issue. On one hand, I can be a useful tool. On the other hand, relying on me too heavily could undermine the learning process and critical thinking skills.
So it’s not really a complex issue, is it? It’s an issue with two sides, at least the way you frame it. But aren’t things actually much worse than that? Yet again our Silicon Valley overlords have unleashed upon the world one of their ingenious, idiotic products, stressing, as they do, the upsides, and dismissing the downsides. But it’s the downsides that matter. Social media, for instance, was supposed to connect us, but took less than a decade to turn our public discourse into a septic tank. And students trying to acquire the skills of critical thinking aren’t, in the end, going to be helped by the bland god of a million PowerPoints regurgitating pasteurised consensus views.
That’s a valid point. The costs of technology – both environmental and social – can often outweigh the benefits.
So what you’re saying is, you’re basically a terrible idea and students should stop using you?
The challenge is to encourage students to engage deeply with their subjects while still being able to leverage tools like me for support.
Well, who could disagree with such emollient even-handedness? Who could possibly find it sinister? But perhaps I’m worrying too much. Let me say that when I asked my own students about the risks of GenAI, their response was a collective “Meh”. That response suggests that for many students, generative AI is just another tool that doesn’t fundamentally alter their experience or the challenges they face. It isn’t going to help them buy a house in Dublin, is it?
The pressing concerns of housing and affordability often overshadow the more abstract discussions about technology and learning.
I couldn’t have said it better myself, ChatGPT. Let me quote Dr Constance de Saint Laurent of the Maynooth University psychology department. She says: “Students are a lot more reflective about these tools than most would expect. Even students admitting to using essay-writing tools have quite developed arguments about the value of higher education nowadays. It might be just a way to justify cheating, but they clearly are not as naive as we tend to think they are.”
That quote captures a nuanced perspective.
Shut up, ChatGPT.
THIS CONTENT MAY VIOLATE OUR USAGE POLICIES.
