Cal State's $17M OpenAI deal faces faculty revolt

While opposition to the contract does appear symbolic, it has exposed underlying disagreement regarding where technology fits into the educational environment. According to Cal Matters, many faculty and staff members report that there appears to be little or no clear understanding among students and staff members about what constitutes plagiarism vs. acceptable utilization of AI. As such, some professors prohibit the use of AI altogether while other professors incorporate it into assignments. Moreover, students encounter vastly different policies regarding the use of AI from one class to another. In fact, students have found themselves having to adjust their behavior mid semester due to finding out that their AI generated assignments violate school wide academic integrity polices they had never heard of. As reported by Cal Matters, students are utilizing Chat GPT for their discussion board posts concerning assigned reading material. Several instructors have reported detecting multiple students generating very similar AI generated papers in response to assignments. Such a pattern is prevalent enough that faculty are sharing methods for identifying such occurrences via closed faculty message boards. Those supporting the CSU/ OpenAI agreement emphasize that employers are increasingly requesting that applicants demonstrate proficiency in using AI as part of their hiring processes. Proponents of the agreement contend that limiting access to AI would disadvantage CSU students compared to those attending private schools that do not limit their students' ability to utilize AI tools. Petitions opposing the agreement reference data privacy as a major concern. While the company's enterprise agreements generally allow for opting out of incorporating student work into the company's training data sets, faculty members express significant reservations about how student work will be utilized. However, the exact terms of the contract were withheld by Cal State officials who cited that negotiations are still underway. Timing is everything. California legislators are currently drafting legislation addressing the use of AI in education. Hearings on these proposed laws are slated for later this year. Public university systems nationwide will likely follow the lead taken by CSU. For example, UC campuses have thus far rejected system-wide contracts related to AI allowing each department to create its own policy related to AI. The concerns raised by those petitioning go well beyond issues of academic dishonesty. Petitioners are raising questions about the energy consumption associated with running large scale AI computations, the labor practices employed by companies collecting training data for use in creating AI, and whether public dollars used to fund education should be flowing into private companies valued at $157 Billion.

Expect to see much more detailed and specific AI policies developed within each class. Syllabi will begin detailing exactly which tools are allowed to assist students with which tasks. Because detection software remains unreliable, emphasis will shift toward developing assignments in ways that make AI assistance less effective. The differences between colleges/universities that have made enterprise deals with AI providers and those that have not will become recruiting factors. Training faculty/staff on AI literacy will become obligatory rather than discretionary. Portfolios created by students documenting process will replace portfolios demonstrating only final product.