Panelists examine obstacles and possibilities of GAI instruments

When inquired whether it is suitable to utilize generative AI for assessing student essays, composing letters of recommendation, or reviewing job candidates, the audience could not reach an agreement.

Presenting the inquiries was Dean of Arts and Humanities Sean Kelly, who initiated the panel discussion “Original Thought in the AI Era: A Faculty Dialogue on Authorship and Ethics” by surveying the audience prior to consulting the panel.

To start, Matthew Kopec, program director and lecturer for Embedded EthiCS, expressed, “Science is not as enjoyable due to the abundance of these tools.”

Immediately challenging this view were Gary King, Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor, and Michael Brenner, Michael F. Cronin Professor of Applied Mathematics and Applied Physics at SEAS.

“Our purpose is to achieve discoveries that enhance human life,” Brenner stated. “We ought to employ every resource available to us for that aim.” He and King argued that while GAI might simplify some scientific tasks, it may also inspire researchers to tackle more complex problems.

King, who is additionally the director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science, pointed out that Harvard has historically imparted to its students the latest technologies to resolve issues more swiftly and effectively, and GAI is no exception.

“The initial math textbooks contained extensive sections attempting to illustrate how to perform calculations without wasting precious paper. Most of us now expend significant effort figuring out how to execute calculations without crashing our computers,” he noted. “You should strive to be the sort of individual who utilizes the best instruments to advance swiftly and reach further.”

The hourlong panel was the premiere in the spring GAI Dialogues series, part of a broader initiative investigating the effects of generative AI on the FAS educational mission. This initiative, prioritized by Edgerley Family Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Hopi Hoekstra, is being guided by her senior adviser on artificial intelligence, Chris Stubbs, the Samuel C. Moncher Professor of Physics and of Astronomy.

The dialogue also explored concerns regarding ethical matters. Although Brenner strongly advocates for the use of GAI in scientific and mathematical domains, he recognized the necessity for vigilance over who is granted control of GAI tools.

King was more straightforward. “Indeed, this technology can be leveraged for harmful purposes. Any technology has the potential for misuse. The determining factor isn’t the technology itself, but the individuals who choose to apply it,” he stated.

A query from an audience participant regarding AI’s possible impact on the environment saw all panelists concur that the technology requires a substantial amount of energy. King responded that AI could either harm the environment or catalyze quicker development of new industries for producing clean energy.

“Before you hastily eliminate these highly visible tools, let’s assess the costs and benefits,” he advised.

Future events in this spring’s GAI Dialogues will include “Teaching With Integrity in the Age of AI” with the College’s offices of Undergraduate Education and Academic Integrity at the Smith Campus Center on Monday. This faculty workshop will delve into optimal approaches for employing AI within the classroom, probable coursework violations, and preventive measures. Other forthcoming events will center on critical reading and writing in the AI era, scheduled for April 3 and 24, respectively, and “Preparing Students for the Future: AI Literacy in the Liberal Arts” on May 5.