A few weeks ago, Dr Kylie Moore-Gilbert, an academic in political science at Macquarie University, wrote an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald reporting on the excessive use of AI chatbots by students to write essays. She raised concerns that universities are qualifying lawyers, nurses, financial advisers, engineers, and teachers who lack essential skills for their roles, with obvious societal consequences.
The AI-Generated Rebuttal
Not everyone in the university sector agrees. Professor Cath Ellis, pro vice-chancellor for quality and integrity at the University of Western Sydney, wrote a rebuttal. However, her piece itself was written by AI, which was not disclosed to the newspaper. Readers spotted telltale AI phraseology, sparking negative reactions on social media.
Ellis defended her piece, saying it was written 'with' AI, not 'by' AI. The university supported her, stating that Copilot produced early drafts and provided editing, structure, and language refinement. They argued her use of AI was sophisticated and reflected her own ideas.
The Flaw in the Defence
This defence is flawed. Most readers do not read opinion pieces merely for distilled points of view; a list of dot points would suffice for that. An opinion piece is an exercise in the art of persuasion. We read to weigh the writer's insights, appreciate their prose, and consider their specific points. The writer has power to influence policy and decision-making.
Every reader deserves to know whether what they are reading is written by the presumed author or not. In my case, if informed, I would choose not to read an article or book written by AI. Others might be happy to do so; that is their right. The essential issue is that the reader is informed in advance.
Defining Human Authorship
The semantics of what it means for an article to be written by a human are clear to me. AI can be used to research facts, test ideas, and perform menial tasks like spellchecking, grammar checking, formatting tables of content, and bibliographies. But AI must not write the sentences and paragraphs. These boundaries are what my company, Proudly Human, calls de minimis standards.
Universities should adopt such standards, with specific rules rather than statements of principle, to avoid arguments about what is acceptable. Without these, an AI-generated article might motivate someone else to use AI to reply, and soon human authorship could become irrelevant.
Media Response
The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age responded by taking down Ellis's piece and stating that future contributors must guarantee no AI was used to write or construct articles. This policy is welcome. Other mastheads should be encouraged to publish their de minimis standards. If some contributors do not abide, more formal procedures like technological verification of human authorship should be implemented.
Universities and AI Integration
As a former university chancellor, I stay in touch with the sector. Universities are well-intentioned, working to integrate AI into teaching and learning while ensuring outcomes. However, they have not matched the speed at which students have adopted AI tools. The Castlereagh statement from earlier this year, by Australian universities and educational associations, articulates how AI affects teaching and learning but proposes no specific rules or rapid timelines.
Specific rules are needed. The AI future has arrived. The time to act is now, by adopting concrete policies for acceptable AI use to ensure that articles, essays, and papers claimed to be written by academics and students are unquestionably written by those humans, not subcontracted to an AI.
My final words: AI had no role in the drafting or writing of this opinion piece.
Alan Finkel AC PhD is founder and executive chair of Proudly Human. He was formerly Chancellor of Monash University, Australia's chief scientist, and founder of Stile Education.
