Kaak ’29: Brown needs to draw the red line on AI

This semester, generative artificial intelligence is part of the zeitgeist at Brown. From the cheating scandal that occurred in Professor of Economics Roberto Serrano’s ECON 1170: “Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory” class, to the Generative AI in Teaching and Learning report, to current controversies surrounding Associate Professor Dany Bahar’s incorporation of the technology in IAPA 1002: “Foundations of Policy and Governance,” AI is everywhere in the mouths and minds of Brunonians. 

While I am personally quite adamant against AI in my own day-to-day usage, the reality is that Bahar has a point regarding the technology as a “fact of professional life.” Already, research into how companies can best integrate AI tools into their workplaces is appearing. McKinsey and Company reports that employees who are “AI creators and heavy users” are more likely to seek out new jobs in light of their perceived value in the workforce. For students who are looking to enter into leadership positions, a healthy understanding of how AI can most efficiently be used may be the most future-proof skill they can pick up on College Hill. 

Brown should be preparing its students to face reality off of College Hill, but Brown itself is almost completely unprepared to face this technology. In its report, the GAITL Committee recommended that Brown adopt University-wide rules for the use of generative AI in the “near-term.” On Sept. 30, the University announced “advancing teaching and learning in the age of AI” as a priority for the 2026-27 academic year. Despite all of this talk of AI, there is very little concrete policy being proposed. If these committees were being formed and these priorities being set in 2022, when ChatGPT was first released, such caution would be appropriate. The University has waited long enough —  Brown needs to draw a firm red line on AI usage now.

Brown has an interest in creating autonomous thinkers and creators. In justifying the WRIT-designation, the University explains that they believe students should approach their education as an unfolding intellectual process. In doing so, they imply that the University not only has a desire to allow students to explore broadly, but also to develop a particular set of world-relevant skills while at Brown. As AI increasingly becomes one such skill, the University must balance this interest against many of the other important muscles it wishes for students to develop. To manage these interests, the University should set AI guidelines that emphasize the importance of students as autonomous creators by prohibiting the use of AI for purely generative purposes.

AI should not be the actor producing the work. Rather, it should act as technology to assist the student. In practice, this could mean sifting through large amounts of material, aiding students in finding relevant articles for research or spot-checking a finished problem set for incorrect calculations. 

But any material solely created by AI is unacceptable in an educational environment. Students should never be allowed or encouraged to produce any work with AI, as Bahar’s IAPA course has asked of its students. Computer science classes should prohibit “vibe coding,” creative writing courses should regard AI-generated pieces as incomplete work and lab reports generated by AI should never be accepted. Even something as seemingly innocuous as AI-generated flash cards and practice problems would be forbidden by this policy. 

While it may be easy to view all of these examples of good and bad AI practice as something arbitrary, all points contribute to the overarching goal of emphasizing the role of people as autonomous creators. Although AI skills are essential to succeeding in a modern workforce, the University still should prioritize its role in educating free-thinking human agents over pure workforce preparation. This red line allows the University to balance these at times competing goals.

While students could benefit from using AI for non-generative purposes in certain courses,  writing-designated courses should fully prohibit AI. The University requires students to take WRIT-designated courses so that students leave College Hill as highly competent writers, able to construct papers with appropriate grammar and relevant evidence. Considering that writing alongside AI chatbots, including the revision stages, takes away from the mental work required when writing, it only seems appropriate that the courses that aim to teach good writing should avoid this technology at all costs. 

With all of this said, it is essential that the policy is a red line so that professors have the freedom to choose how close they come to crossing it. While some classes may specifically focus on developing AI proficiency — and as such assign AI in a greater capacity — many other courses may not have this goal in mind. The University should ensure that professors have the freedom to back away from the line when deciding how to shape their courses.

While I commend the University’s efforts to carefully juggle various interdepartmental perspectives in the development of the GAITL committee, Brown simply cannot afford such caution when the technology has already spread across College Hill. Ready or not, the age of AI is upon us. In turn, Brown must prepare students for when they leave through the Van Wickle Gates.

Avery Kaak ’29 can be reached at avery_kaak@brown.edu. Please send responses to this column to letters@browndailyherald.com and other opinions to opinions@browndailyherald.com.