Hi. Can you write an introduction about AI-use in UP using the style of the Philippine Collegian?

As UP continues to blaze the trail in the field of education, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) brings new opportunities to expand the frontiers of knowledge. From improving personalized learning experiences to addressing critical societal issues, the potential of AI in UP is limitless. With the right approach, AI could be the key to unlocking unprecedented academic progress and innovation at the university.

Indeed, AI might just change the way education is conducted. As AI learns more, it becomes able to answer exams and even write this article, with my professors, as well as my editor, being none the wiser.

But as the machine becomes more human-like, what separates a chatbot and a student only becomes more apparent. After all, while both learn by cramming down inputs, predicting patterns and analyzing data, they are only the initial steps in learning—what comes after all the lessons is what matters. In this sense, perhaps AI is not a replacement, but a fellow student or teacher who can assist our learning. 

Who are you?

I am ChatGPT, a conversational AI developed by OpenAI. I am designed to communicate with humans and answer a wide range of questions to the best of my knowledge based on the data that I have been trained on. 

In humankind’s pursuit of efficiency and ease of doing things, the use of AI becomes inevitable. In truth, AI-powered tools are already more prevalent than we think. It is the one that suggests the words “to follow up” as we write “Hi! I would just like” in an email to an unresponsive professor. 

Machines become this smart by consuming large amounts of data from humans and then analyzing patterns to create self-operating algorithms. Two types of AI currently exist: reactive machines that only operate based on current data, like our opponents in online chess, and limited memory AI that forms inferences and predicts future actions, such as self-driving cars and ChatGPT. 

Eugene Rex Jalao, the AI program coordinator at UP Diliman (UPD), says that with AI’s ability to summarize textual data, it can perform functions from solving codes to creating yearly lesson plans for faculty in seconds. 

ChatGPT’s AI uses natural language processing to interpret inputs and create human-like outputs. A user gives it a prompt, it predicts the best possible answer or provides data based on pre-trained knowledge, then it generates text as output.

This is how ChatGPT was able to write the introduction for this article. “I have been trained on vast amounts of text from a variety of sources, including the Philippine Collegian. This training has allowed me to learn their structure, tone, and style, and to generate text that is similar to what one might find in the publication,” the machine explained.

Yet, as AI’s proficiency in text expands beyond predicting words in emails, its ability to answer exams and create passable essays raises issues on academic integrity. Do we credit the machine for summarizing important data? Or is the output still owned by the student who learned how to create the perfect prompt? 

Are You a Friend or a Foe? 

I am neither a friend nor a foe. I am a tool designed to assist and provide helpful responses to your queries. My purpose is to help you find the information you need and to assist you in your tasks to the best of my ability. 

AI, like any machine, cannot be judged as good or evil. Just like any tool, its actions and subsequent effects are dictated by the user’s intention. 

Leander Marquez, an assistant professor of philosophy at UPD, has considered prohibiting the use of ChatGPT in his classes, but admitted that he wouldn’t be able to tell if students pass essays made by AI. Despite this, Marquez refuses to believe that the essay has become dead as an academic requirement. He likens the situation to a math teacher still giving exams in basic operations despite the accessibility of calculators.

“It’s worrisome yes, but I don’t see it as threatening, at least para sa’kin, to the point na it threatens the credibility of education or the educative process,” Marquez says.

Meanwhile, Peter Cayton, an associate professor at the UPD School of Statistics, has actively involved the use of AI in his classes. In his class policy, he allows students to use accessible AI tools like ChatGPT to improve their writing, but not to make it for them.

As AI use becomes more prevalent, the faculty of the UPD AI program said that the university must revisit its academic integrity rules to include AI. Marquez and Cayton also expressed their willingness to use a university-certified AI checker that would add a measure of security against academic dishonesty. 

However, Jalao believes the proper way to address AI should not be strict regulation. Instead, emerging technologies should be leveraged in a way that improves everyone’s lives. 

“The same type of AI can be used for good or bad. The correct way to answer that is we should push for the ethical use of AI, whatever that form is,” he says. A bill creating an agency that would ensure AI complied with ethical guidelines and oversee its developments was filed in Congress on March 1.

AI should not be regulated nor be construed as a threat, and instead be utilized to improve the learning process. Professors should follow suit in this natural wave of technology, as its uses largely outweigh its risks, he says. 

Yet despite the growing shift towards AI tools, Marquez still emphasizes the responsibility of students to develop their education unassisted by generated content. He expects UP students to adhere to the motto of “Honor and Excellence” regardless of how accessible these tools are.

Will You Replace Students?

No, as an AI language model, I cannot replace students. While AI technologies have the potential to enhance the learning experience, they cannot replicate the unique perspectives, experiences, and creativity that students bring to the classroom. Students are not just passive receivers of information; they actively engage with the material, ask questions, and form connections that are essential to their learning.

AI would not be a threat to education if students are not simply reduced to being machines or regurgitators of theory. If anything, AI’s proliferation only exposed today’s education process as eerily similar to the programming of a computer.

AI and humans are both learners but what separates them is the ability to create, not generate, knowledge. When classrooms turn students into automatons, their ability to develop critical thinking becomes undermined. Education should instead encourage students to become conscious beings that are able to engage with the world, not imprisoned by the information and instruction fed to them.

The attainment of true learning comes from discourse, which cannot be programmed through lines of code. So while computers can self-optimize and make themselves more efficient, they cannot evolve to become more intelligent. AI cannot replicate the educative process because machines do not have the capacity to create knowledge as humans do. Education is dependent on the exchange of new ideas between student and teacher, attained from dialogue and critical thinking.

Moreover, ChatGPT is not perfect. Its inaccuracy and fabrication of certain information are its biggest weaknesses. Cayton views AI as something that still needs human guidance. “It is a tool you can use only if you are knowledgeable about what you’re writing or what you are doing. It still has the potential to make mistakes because it is not able to perceive intelligence like us humans,” he says.

AI will not replace professors or students just like how it will not replace the essential aspect that makes education a truly transformative experience. Intelligence is not just about acquiring knowledge, but sharing and exchanging it with others. Education should be firmly grounded in this human element, or else the line between man and machine will continue to blur. ●