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

2405.00995

YC

0

Reddit

0

Published 5/3/2024 by Afsaneh Razi, Layla Bouzoubaa, Aria Pessianzadeh, John S. Seberger, Rezvaneh Rezapour

⛏️

Abstract

In the rapidly evolving landscape of computing disciplines, substantial efforts are being dedicated to unraveling the sociotechnical implications of generative AI (Gen AI). While existing research has manifested in various forms, there remains a notable gap concerning the direct engagement of knowledge workers in academia with Gen AI. We interviewed 18 knowledge workers, including faculty and students, to investigate the social and technical dimensions of Gen AI from their perspective. Our participants raised concerns about the opacity of the data used to train Gen AI. This lack of transparency makes it difficult to identify and address inaccurate, biased, and potentially harmful, information generated by these models. Knowledge workers also expressed worries about Gen AI undermining trust in the relationship between instructor and student and discussed potential solutions, such as pedagogy readiness, to mitigate them. Additionally, participants recognized Gen AI's potential to democratize knowledge by accelerating the learning process and act as an accessible research assistant. However, there were also concerns about potential social and power imbalances stemming from unequal access to such technologies. Our study offers insights into the concerns and hopes of knowledge workers about the ethical use of Gen AI in educational settings and beyond, with implications for navigating this new landscape.

Create account to get full access

or

If you already have an account, we'll log you in

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.



This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!

Related Papers

Sociotechnical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Information Access

Sociotechnical Implications of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Information Access

Bhaskar Mitra, Henriette Cramer, Olya Gurevich

YC

0

Reddit

0

Robust access to trustworthy information is a critical need for society with implications for knowledge production, public health education, and promoting informed citizenry in democratic societies. Generative AI technologies may enable new ways to access information and improve effectiveness of existing information retrieval systems but we are only starting to understand and grapple with their long-term social implications. In this chapter, we present an overview of some of the systemic consequences and risks of employing generative AI in the context of information access. We also provide recommendations for evaluation and mitigation, and discuss challenges for future research.

Read more

5/21/2024

Generative AI and Teachers -- For Us or Against Us? A Case Study

Generative AI and Teachers -- For Us or Against Us? A Case Study

Jenny Pettersson, Elias Hult, Tim Eriksson, Tosin Adewumi

YC

0

Reddit

0

We present insightful results of a survey on the adoption of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) by university teachers in their teaching activities. The transformation of education by GenAI, particularly large language models (LLMs), has been presenting both opportunities and challenges, including cheating by students. We prepared the online survey according to best practices and the questions were created by the authors, who have pedagogy experience. The survey contained 12 questions and a pilot study was first conducted. The survey was then sent to all teachers in multiple departments across different campuses of the university of interest in Sweden: Lule{aa} University of Technology. The survey was available in both Swedish and English. The results show that 35 teachers (more than half) use GenAI out of 67 respondents. Preparation is the teaching activity with the most frequency that GenAI is used for and ChatGPT is the most commonly used GenAI. 59% say it has impacted their teaching, however, 55% say there should be legislation around the use of GenAI, especially as inaccuracies and cheating are the biggest concerns.

Read more

4/5/2024

🤖

The collective use and evaluation of generative AI tools in digital humanities research: Survey-based results

Meredith Dedema, Rongqian Ma

YC

0

Reddit

0

The advent of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies has revolutionized research, with significant implications for Digital Humanities (DH), a field inherently intertwined with technological progress. This article investigates how digital humanities scholars adopt, practice, as well as critically evaluate, GenAI technologies such as ChatGPT in the research process. Drawing on 76 responses collected from an international survey study, we explored digital humanities scholars' rationale for GenAI adoption in research, identified specific use cases and practices of using GenAI to support various DH research tasks, and analyzed scholars' collective perceptions of GenAI's benefits, risks, and impact on DH research. The survey results suggest that DH research communities hold divisive sentiments towards the value of GenAI in DH scholarship, whereas the actual usage diversifies among individuals and across research tasks. Our survey-based analysis has the potential to serve as a basis for further empirical research on the impact of GenAI on the evolution of DH scholarship.

Read more

4/22/2024

👀

Student Reflections on Self-Initiated GenAI Use in HCI Education

Hauke Sandhaus, Maria Teresa Parreira, Wendy Ju

YC

0

Reddit

0

This study explores students' self-initiated use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools in an interactive systems design class. Through 12 group interviews, students revealed the dual nature of GenAI in (1) stimulating creativity and (2) speeding up design iterations, alongside concerns over its potential to cause shallow learning and reliance. GenAI's benefits were pronounced in the execution phase of design, aiding rapid prototyping and ideation, while its use in initial insight generation posed risks to depth and reflective practice. This reflection highlights the complex role of GenAI in Human-Computer Interaction education, emphasizing the need for balanced integration to leverage its advantages without compromising fundamental learning outcomes.

Read more

5/3/2024