Any use of AI is absolutely forbidden. And if the use, it us actually easy to figure out. Using AI later as help tool once they know material, methodology etc. is fine. But, learn first basics. For example English is my second language. I use tools that are now AI to help wiyh grammar. But even then, I must review it as AI driven tools change nature of sentence often.
Ok, so using AI as an aid after understanding the material is fine and, in fact, you (as a professor) do it yourself. So, presumably you do not think there is a negative implication of using AI as a tool once the material is learned and understood at a sufficient depth. I do not disagree with that, nor do I think you're doing anything wrong using AI as a tool to help you with writing in a non-native language.
But not only do you forbid your students from using it, you experienced the most depressing day of your career when a student inquired as to why it is important to spend all the time and effort to learn high-level writing skills when AI can handle the task effortlessly?
That line of reasoning is consistent only if there was an axiomatic link between strong writing and one's ability to understand material at depth. But you yourself seem to provide a counterexample to that so, at least on its face, it seems highly inconsistent. Am I missing something?
(Perhaps I am, so see my question below as it might clarify things for me).
As for AI, they will try to use it to avoid what are two major assignments; book review for mid term and policy paper for the end of semester that has to resemble academic paper when it comes to research rigor, length etc. They will try to beat the system. Some won’t (usually know which ones).
Would you say that your use of AI is "beating the system?" Since you appear to be highly credentialed in an academic area, I would tend to say no, you're effectively using an excellent tool to bridge a gap that you would certainly be capable of doing yourself but would probably be a waste of your time.
Perhaps the particular student you brought up was an example of someone trying to "beat the system" in the sense that they were trying to pass a class without learning the material, but:
1) I think most students are asking this question on an honest basis of wanting a rationale as to why they shouldn't avoid wasting time learning to write well when AI exists, an approach you seem to have taken yourself.
2) Why bring that student up to support your view that inquiring about the need to learn to write in an AI world is fundamentally depressing? Based on your response here, it would seem that if the student had been a strong one, you would not have been so depressed, so what point were you making with that example?
Well, his question is why need to write if having AI? With students like that you can go back to basics about enlightenment and renesaince, but that is fools errand. Or you can try what that practically means at their job.
Since I am ignorant of the connection, could you give a brief outline of how the Enlightenment and Rennaissance provide the basics of why it's important to spend time and effort learning to write when AI can do that job?
I'm interested in that and even more interested as to why if this rationale is so basic that you don't adhere to its principles and take the time to learn how to write well in English and thus avoid needed AI as a tool to help you with that task.
