Duke University pilot project examining pros and cons of using artificial intelligence in college

Generative AI tools like ChatGPT pose a critical question for higher education: how do we harness their power without sacrificing fundamental learning? This isn't merely academic; it's a pressing reality. Duke University has launched a significant pilot project to explore the opportunities and pitfalls AI presents.

Duke's Proactive Stance on AI Integration

From June 2, Duke offered free, unlimited access to ChatGPT-4o for all students and staff. This move, paired with DukeGPT (a privacy-protected, university-managed AI interface), aims to understand AI's impact. A Provost’s Initiative, launched May 23, will foster campus dialogue and issue a report by Fall 2025 with recommendations on AI's role in student life.

Faculty Perspectives: Navigating the AI Frontier

On campus, faculty opinions are as diverse as the disciplines themselves, reflecting a nuanced understanding of AI’s dual nature.

Embracing AI as a Strategic Learning Aid

For some, AI is a valuable resource when used transparently. Associate Professor David Carlson (civil engineering) allows AI if students acknowledge its use and take responsibility for inaccuracies, seeing it as a tool for "secondary explanations." Assistant Professor Matthew Engelhard also encourages AI, but stresses understanding underlying principles. He warns that over-reliance, like a calculator without basic arithmetic, can "short-circuit the learning process" itself.

Protecting Core Intellectual Development

Conversely, others voice significant reservations. Thomas Pfau, a distinguished English professor, argues that in humanities, where interpretation and voice are paramount, AI can hinder "personhood." He fears students will lose their unique voice. Professor Henry Pickford notes humanities writing fosters "self-discovery" and "self-expression." If AI reduces writing to a "duty," students miss intellectual challenges. Concerns over plagiarism also push educators to rethink assignments.

Student Realities: A Powerful, Yet Perilous Tool

Students offer practical insights. Junior Keshav Varadarajan finds ChatGPT useful for outlining, coding, and clarifying jargon. Yet, he struggles to "internalize concepts" when AI offers shortcuts. Junior Conrad Qu calls it an "ever-present tutor," boosting productivity. Both agree AI is tempting for "time crunches," but they avoid it for deep learning or topics they genuinely care about.

Rethinking Assessment and Fostering True Learning

Detecting AI use drives innovative assessment. Carlson now includes oral presentations, "very hard to fake." Pickford moved from papers to spoken defenses and in-class exams to minimize AI shortcuts. He notes AI can offer feedback on outlines, but genuine intellectual struggle remains invaluable.

The Path Forward: Responsibility and Curiosity

The debate continues without easy answers. Some view AI as a net positive, boosting achievement and reducing frustration. Others, like Pfau, fear student over-reliance, leading to "competitive disadvantage" and intellectual erosion. Ultimately, responsibility lies with the individual. Will students use AI to expand capabilities or diminish critical thought? The power isn't in the tool, but in conscious engagement. Cultivate innate curiosity and self-respect; skills AI cannot replicate.