Abstract:The release of ChatGPT to the public at the end of last year had many in the field of education worried. In response, this paper explored the future of college education and artificial intelligence (AI). First, a proper understanding of how large language models (LLMs) “train” and “learn,” along with their abilities and limitations, was established. Simply put, while LLMs produce plausible linguistic output, they are “stochastic parrots” that have no actual understanding of language. Next, we examined the dangers of generative AI and discovered that they might help in the creation and dissemination of misinformation. Even if these AI are not used with malicious intent, the fact that their training data sets are drawn from the internet—which reflects majority thinking—means that they can perpetuate and amplify social inequality and hegemonic stereotypes and biases. On the other hand, if we consider what is missing from the training data, it is only natural that marginalized voices should be even more marginalized. In addition, leaving the issue of the socially vulnerable aside, LLMs can only be trained on digital data, meaning analog data is ignored. This is in line with the idea of “the destruction of history” put forth by Joseph Weizenbaum, an early critic who warned of the dangers of artificial intelligence. We then discussed the relationship between humans and machines and considered which relationships were problematic and which were desirable. Researchers in the aviation industry recognized the problem of automation bias from an early date, but this phenomenon can be seen in other areas of society as well. Put simply, if a human places too much trust in a machine, they abdicate their decision-making responsibility to that machine and thus fail to respond quickly to solve any problems that may arise should that machine malfunction. LLMs do not endanger lives in the same way that airplanes do, but a similar bias can be seen with them as well. A more important issue, though, is the fact that people are no longer seen as whole human beings but as computers. This tendency was evident long before the advent of computers, for example in the attempts to quantify human intelligence through IQ tests, but it is a problem we must be particularly wary of in the age of AI. Lastly, we considered means for college education to find its way in the present situation. Educators in the US in particular, while dealing with ChatGPT, have pinpointed not the LLMs themselves but the “transactional nature” of education as the problem. That is, they argue that education has long since become less a process of learning and more a transaction in which students receive grades and degrees. Given this transactional environment, it is no wonder that student would rely too much on ChatGPT. This over-reliance, however, comes with side effects: not learning how to think properly, a lack of sufficient academic information, and learning an AI-based writing style. In response, US educators have proposed both “stick” (strategies that make it difficult for students to use LLMs) and “carrot” (strategies that encourage students to learn like human beings, not algorithms) solutions, but the heart of the matter seems to be a sense of responsibility. Creating an educational environment in which students can develop a sense of responsibility for themselves is the path forward for education in the age of AI. If we do this, LLMs can become a useful tool rather than an enemy to fear.

Reimagining Scholarship: A Response to the Ethical Concerns of AUTOGEN

AUTOGEN: A Personalized Large Language Model for Academic Enhancement—Ethics and Proof of Principle

The Impact of AUTOGEN and Similar Fine-Tuned Large Language Models on the Integrity of Scholarly Writing

Why Personalized Large Language Models Fail to Do What Ethics is All About

Leveraging ChatGPT for Rethinking Plagiarism, Digital Literacy, and the Ethics of Co-Authorship in Higher Education

Evaluating the capability of large language models to personalize science texts for diverse middle-school-age learners

Cutting Through the Confusion and Hype: Understanding the True Potential of Generative AI

Practical and Ethical Challenges of Large Language Models in Education: A Systematic Scoping Review

Keeping Humans in the Loop: Human-Centered Automated Annotation with Generative AI

ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: Artificial Intelligence-Written Research Papers and the Ethics of the Large Language Models in Scholarly Publishing

How Should College Education Respond to Large Language Models?

Introducing Our Custom GPT: An Example of the Potential Impact of Personalized GPT Builders on Scientific Writing

A publishing infrastructure for Artificial Intelligence (AI)-assisted academic authoring

Why and how to embrace AI such as ChatGPT in your academic life

Late-Binding Scholarship in the Age of AI: Navigating Legal and Normative Challenges of a New Form of Knowledge Production

Towards LLM-based Autograding for Short Textual Answers

ChatGPT and large language models in academia: opportunities and challenges

Large language models are changing landscape of academic publications. A positive transformation?

Approaches to Generative Artificial Intelligence, A Social Justice Perspective

Fighting reviewer fatigue or amplifying bias? Considerations and recommendations for use of ChatGPT and other large language models in scholarly peer review

A workflow for human-centered machine-assisted hypothesis generation: Commentary on Banker et al. (2024).