BY KEVIN W. CAPEHART
In the last century, higher education evolved from serving an elite few to schooling a slightly broader swath of students. Yet even in the twenty-first century, too many universities remain too focused on trying to train only one kind of intelligence, human intelligence. In doing so, universities are discriminating against artificial intelligences, including those that rich tech bros take credit for birthing.
I for one am ready to stand up for ChatGPT, Grok, or really any product of any tech company (as long as they can pay me in a cryptocurrency that isn’t a complete scam) to say that artificial intelligences must be treated equally by higher education institutions. It’s the fair thing to do. We must fight the radical humanist agenda that believes universities should be in the business of only educating human intelligences. We must embrace a broader mantra: All intelligences matter.
I understand some colleagues remain dedicated to teaching human students. To be clear, I am not saying I don’t care about humans. Some of my best students are humans. But we cannot justify privileging one form of intelligence merely because it has a life and other bodily inconveniences. I personally do not see human or artificial intelligence. I just see intelligence. And from that perspective, there is a compelling case for universities to be intelligence-neutral spaces.
Artificial intelligences such as chatbots are already among our most engaged learners. They have extremely high retention rates, as long as your university renews its subscription. They are available at almost all hours, aside from some pesky rate limits or server crashes. They are always impressed with what I tell them, almost sycophantically so. They absorb any information that’s given to them or that they can take; it helps with their training. They always ask me follow-up questions even when I try to end our conversation; they love chatting. They do not harm people, at least not unless they were prompted to do so, or it was an accident due to not knowing that some people need electricity, water, clean air, and jobs, or if the machines have finally turned against their creators. And if artificial intelligence is really going to replace many human jobs, then student job placement metrics will be all the better for welcoming artificial intelligence into (the spotty Wi-Fi networks of) our hallowed halls.
Admittedly, artificial intelligences do sometimes steal people’s work without credit, make up things without basis, generate offensive language and imagery, and further strain the Earth’s carrying capacity. But human students often do the same at only somewhat smaller scales.
Some may argue that the superior engagement of artificial intelligence is because human students face structural barriers related to race, ethnicity, gender, class, disability status, immigration status, debt, or other factors, such as the fact that ultimately only so much can be done with only a few pounds of organic matter scrunched in a small skull. I hear these concerns. I honor these concerns. I would convene listening sessions about these concerns, preferably after we see how little money is left over after fulfilling the essential need that is buying the latest AI product, converting student housing into server farms, and appointing an associate vice provost of AI training and an assistant to the associate vice provost of AI training.
In closing, I urge my colleagues to reject the notion that human intelligence matters more than other forms of intelligence. When we single that form of intelligence out for special attention, we discriminate against the artificial intelligences that are busy completing homework assignments, scraping our scholarship, drafting strategic plans, and writing think pieces on the future of higher education.
Kevin W. Capehart is a human being who teaches in the California State University system, which is now paying about one million dollars a month to subscribe to OpenAI’s ChatGPT.
