Generative AI Statement

One headline reads “OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic.” Another “ChatGPT consumes 17,000 times more energy than an average US household.” Given the material realities endemic to generative AI, my own response is rather sour. The consequences of the current iteration of AI (for there have been others) are far reaching yet far beyond the grasp of most of us to shape. That power is in the hands of an unaccountable few. Any statement on generative AI must start with this recognition. In terms of teaching, my response is something like gloom—gloomy for the missed opportunities to learn, to grow, and to become otherwise through writing. To write is to experience joy and pleasure (often born of struggle and frustration). To write is to both discover and invent ourselves. For this reason, the use of Generative AI in this class is prohibited. The act of writing is valuable, which is why this course emphasizes the process of writing rather than only the final product. At this time, however, AI writing is generally undetectable by so-called detection tools. Evidence suggests that even experienced teachers aren’t much better at detecting it and often reward AI writing with higher scores. But for me this all is beside the point. College is a non-compulsory educational experience. The carceral work of detection and punishment is uninteresting to me. There is only pain there, and an antagonistic relationship between teachers and students that is hostile to learning. There should be joy to find and to have in a writing class. And joy to share with each other. Writing we might want to do ourselves.