Published Content
AI Conceptualization and Policy Permissibility
Zea Miller, Kashish Sachdeva, and Jake Walker
When universities create AI policies, they often conceptualize AI as something, such as a tool or a resource. This study questions whether such policies are affected by how they envision AI. In other words, is the permissible a function of conceptualization? To answer, R1 university policies were rated independently by three raters on two axes: conceptualization and permissibility. When visualized, the ratings clearly show that while AI qua TOOL does not inherently attach either to the restrive or permissive, AI qua RESOURCE does not attach to the restrictive. Ultimately, this study shows that universities are unlikely at this time to conceptualize AI as a resource and simultaneously ban it.
The Ethical Implications of AI in the Composition Classroom: From Plato to Parrots and Back Again
Rebecca Cepek, PhD
This article addresses the needs of first-year writing students in regard to the use of generative artificial intelligence programs in the composition classroom. The responses to generative AI in academia have settled into three somewhat predictable patterns: complete resistance, complete acceptance, and the ever-popular middle ground. While generally, I like to avoid extremes, I am unable to do so in this case: I feel for the sake of our students, in terms of first-year writing, we must take the path of complete resistance. The various generative AI systems, as they exist now, are flawed for a variety of reasons, with deeply troubling ethical implications in terms of the environment, the information they produce, and the ways in which they share that information.