@olivia Olivia, what would it mean for me to “refuse adoption” in universities when it is students who are the drivers for my courses and they are widely using AI in ways that are already forbidden?

I feel like the “resistance” and critique of inevitability talk isn’t quite connecting with my reality on the ground

@UlrikeHahn @olivia

I glanced at your work on "Science communication as collective intelligence".

I think that we need to redesign university courses so that learning is communal for the solution of a specific goal.

I think though that Olivia's points are complementary to that goal. Universities should resist AI adoption as imposed by external economic forces.

@apostolis @olivia I’ve have already redesigned both my assessments and my teaching in response to students’ AI use, but that kind of adaptation feels like it conceptually falls more into “inevitability” than “resist”

right now, what’s most valuable to me personally (given the starting point that every single student in my courses has somehow used AI, and a good proportion uses it *a lot*) is advice from other academics on how exactly they are trying to change what they do in response.

telling me “I can resist” doesn’t feel helpful in that way

@apostolis @olivia I guess a different way of putting this all is that for the multiple ways in which AI is currently negatively affecting my work, both in teaching and research, the drivers underlying the use are not ,industry forces’ in the way the quoted passage in Olivia’s post is assuming, it is the independent, voluntary action of other individuals within the system (students, other researchers)

that whole frame (industry forces) captures well what is happening in many jobs, but it doesn’t capture what is happening in mine