A photo taken on Nov. 23, 2023, shows the logo of the ChatGPT application developed by U.S. artificial intelligence research organization OpenAI on a smartphone screen. Credit: Kirill Kudryavtsev | AFP/Getty Images (via TNS).
Ohio State’s Undergraduate Student Government unanimously passed a resolution Wednesday encouraging instructors at the university to include statements in their syllabi regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence.
The resolution, titled 56-R-21, was introduced by Hayden Price, a second-year in biomedical science and USG senator. According to the resolution, Ohio State’s Office of Undergraduate Education’s recommended syllabus statements provide a brief statement on generative AI that claims “generative AI tools should not be used in the completion of course assignments unless an instructor for a given course specifically authorizes their use.”
Price said that the term “generative AI” is too broad, as it can refer to numerous software and make it confusing for students to understand what they’re able to use.
“Some people may consider something like Grammarly to be generative AI whereas others may not,” Price said. “Really, generative AI is any form of artificial intelligence that mimics the way a human would produce something.”
The resolution argues that the University’s statement “does not provide clear encouragement to the instructor to tailor [the] statement to their own class.” Price said it would be more helpful if professors created personalized policies regarding AI use rather than referring to the university’s broad policy.
“Misuse of [generative AI] tools has obviously been a huge priority for the university, but it’s not always clear to students what constitutes misuse. Currently, syllabi tend to either include
a link to the Code of Student Conduct, which does now include a statement on generative AI,” Price said. “Instructors write their syllabus for their specific course, so they should be able to give their policy on generative AI instead of referring to more broad university policies.”
Section 3335-23-04 within The Code of Student Conduct currently lists, “Unauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence systems or similar technologies to complete academic activities,” as prohibited conduct.
Not everyone agreed on the contents of 56-R-21. Sen. Krityug Nischal, a third-year in political science, expressed his opinions that the resolution could be improved by pointing out the work Ohio State has already begun to do to regulate student AI usage.
“Ohio State is trying their best and working hard on regulating policies relating to artificial intelligence,” Nischal said. “The university has formed an AI committee to work specifically on this issue and the board of trustees also passed rules about it. I think we should respect the trustees and university faculty who are working hard on forming new rules and regulations as they see fit.”
Madelyn Davis, a third-year in marketing and USG senator who works as an administrative assistant for the School of Communication, described how 56-R-21 would benefit her work.
Davis said she has gone through “hundreds of syllabi in the past week to audit professors, and a lot of them don’t acknowledge artificial intelligence at all.”
“I think that it’s important that this resolution presents that,” Davis said.
