Not a Swiss Army Knife: Academics' Perceptions of Trade-Offs Around Generative Artificial Intelligence Use

Overview

• This paper explores the perspectives of knowledge workers, including faculty and students, on the social and technical implications of generative AI (Gen AI) in academic settings.
• Researchers interviewed 18 knowledge workers to understand their concerns and hopes about the use of Gen AI in education.
• Key findings include:
  • Concerns about the opacity of data used to train Gen AI models, making it difficult to identify and address inaccuracies, biases, and potential harms.
  • Worries about Gen AI undermining trust in the instructor-student relationship and potential solutions, such as pedagogy readiness.
  • Recognition of Gen AI's potential to democratize knowledge and act as an accessible research assistant.
  • Concerns about potential social and power imbalances from unequal access to these technologies.

Plain English Explanation

This research paper examines how academics, including professors and students, feel about the use of generative AI in education. The researchers interviewed 18 people to understand their perspectives on the pros and cons of using these AI systems.

One of the main concerns raised was the lack of transparency around the data used to train the AI models. This makes it hard to know if the information they generate is accurate, biased, or potentially harmful. Knowledge workers worry that using these AI tools could undermine the trust between teachers and students.

However, the participants also recognized the potential benefits of generative AI, such as democratizing knowledge and acting as a helpful research assistant. At the same time, they expressed concerns about social and power imbalances if access to these technologies is not equal.

Overall, this study provides insights into the hopes and fears that academics have about the use of generative AI in education and beyond. It highlights the need to address issues of transparency, trust, and equity as these powerful technologies become more prevalent.

Technical Explanation

The researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 knowledge workers, including faculty and students, to investigate their perspectives on the social and technical dimensions of generative AI (Gen AI) in academic settings. The participants were recruited from various disciplines, including computer science, education, and the humanities.

The interview protocol covered topics such as the participants' general understanding of Gen AI, their experiences with using these technologies, and their concerns and hopes about the implications of Gen AI in educational and research contexts. The interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a thematic coding approach to identify key themes and insights.

The study's key findings include:

1. Opacity of Training Data: Participants raised concerns about the opacity of the data used to train Gen AI models, making it difficult to identify and address inaccurate, biased, and potentially harmful information generated by these systems.
2. Undermining Trust in Instructor-Student Relationships: Knowledge workers expressed worries about Gen AI undermining the trust and relationship between instructors and students, and discussed potential solutions, such as pedagogy readiness, to mitigate these concerns.
3. Democratizing Knowledge and Research Assistance: Participants recognized Gen AI's potential to democratize knowledge by accelerating the learning process and acting as an accessible research assistant.
4. Concerns about Social and Power Imbalances: Participants also expressed concerns about potential social and power imbalances stemming from unequal access to these technologies.

The study offers insights into the concerns and hopes of knowledge workers regarding the ethical use of Gen AI in educational settings and beyond, with implications for navigating this new landscape.

Critical Analysis

The study provides valuable insights into the perspectives of knowledge workers on the use of generative AI in academic settings. However, it is important to note that the sample size is relatively small, with only 18 participants. While the study offers a depth of understanding, the findings may not be fully representative of the broader academic community.

Additionally, the study focused primarily on the concerns and challenges associated with Gen AI, without delving deeply into the specific solutions or strategies that participants proposed to address these issues. Further research could explore in more detail the ideas and suggestions put forth by the participants for mitigating the potential negative impacts of these technologies.

It would also be beneficial to expand the study to include a more diverse range of knowledge workers, such as administrators, policymakers, and industry professionals, to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the sociotechnical implications of Gen AI across different sectors.

Finally, the paper does not critically examine the potential biases or limitations of the researchers' own analysis and interpretation of the data. Acknowledging and addressing these potential biases could strengthen the credibility and reliability of the study's findings.

Conclusion

This research paper provides valuable insights into the perspectives of knowledge workers, including faculty and students, on the social and technical implications of generative AI (Gen AI) in academic settings. The study highlights the concerns raised by participants about the opacity of the data used to train these AI models, the potential undermining of trust in the instructor-student relationship, and the worries about social and power imbalances stemming from unequal access to these technologies.

At the same time, the paper recognizes the potential of Gen AI to democratize knowledge and act as an accessible research assistant. The findings have important implications for navigating the ethical use of Gen AI in education and beyond, underscoring the need for greater transparency, trust-building, and equitable access to these powerful technologies.

As the use of generative AI continues to proliferate, this study offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse and provides a foundation for future research and discussions on the sociotechnical implications of these transformative technologies.