[fallinditch]

That's a lot of words for one practical recommendation: University councils for discussing 'AI conviviality'.

I think the author presents a one dimensional view of AI bad and fails to see the bigger picture, which is ironic considering all the fine words he uses.

I agree that AI tools can potentially weaken some of our lower level cognitive functions, but on the flip side the AI tools also enable us to operate on higher levels of ability, planning, conceptualization and execution.

This is undoubtedly a point of inflexion for Universities: they should be working out how they can achieve a new deal for students and society that is far more nuanced and constructive than mere 'resistance' against AI.

[Animats]

That's really the only tangible recommendation in the article.

The real problem for universities is this: much of what classical academia claims is important is not all that hard for a LLM. Writing "compare and contrast" student papers, research which consists of digging through existing texts and summarizing, and writing in a formal style are all things LLMs do. Probably better than most undergraduates.

This shakes the philosophical foundations of academia. What are universities for now? Job training? Sorting the winners from the losers? Something else?

[mariusor]

> but on the flip side the AI tools also enable us to operate on higher levels of ability, planning, conceptualization and execution.

Are there any concrete examples of this? Did any researcher, engineer, artist, etc come forwards and say: "yes, this work you esteem so much, was created by me with the help of AI"?

To me, your words sound more of wishful thinking than the situation as is currently. I'm willing to be set right though.