Stephen DayFollowing Thursday’s protest, a Tuesday teach-in will examine artificial intelligence, university spending, and student choice.
Students for Quality Education at CSUSB are encouraging students to examine the university’s approach to artificial intelligence at a Tuesday, Oct. 20, teach-in following a campus protest against OpenAI.
Students are being asked to skip their classes and join Dr. Jeremy Murray in the College of Education building, room 106, from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m. Murray, a history professor, will be discussing technology and CSUs' financial commitments to OpenAI, drawing on the “Critical Perspectives on ‘AI’ in Education” webinar series.
SQE organizers, like Miguel Angel Davalos Jr., are hoping that the campaign will raise questions about who makes decisions about technology and whose needs are focused on with university spending.
“We want students and professors to have more say in the way that artificial intelligence is ethically used on our campus,” Davalos said.
The local campaign developed after SQE members from different CSU campuses discussed participating in the QuitGPT movement at an organizing retreat. Here at CSUSB, organizers held a protest on Oct. 15 with the goal of getting student support for a petition challenging the university system’s approach to AI.
Davalos said that university resources should be directed towards campus needs, particularly faculty compensation and opportunities for students to participate in research.
Davalos acknowledged that AI is already part of student’s education and daily lives, and recognizes that campaigns like QuitGPT may not work for all students. He favors an arrangement where students who want to use services like ChatGPT EDU could do so at a discounted rate rather than having the university purchase blanket access across the CSU.
“We keep saying, no, no, no, but the tools, the technology is here,” he said.
For David, a pre-nursing student who stopped at the protest table Thursday, the concerns included creativity and opportunities for student artists.
David said images he sees using AI in campus promotional materials make him less interested in the announcement or event. He would prefer departments that involve students in producing graphics, giving them a way to contribute to campus life, and potentially earn money.
“They [AI generated images] annoy me. It just gets me completely disinterested.”
Tuesday’s teach-in will bring the discussion back to the university’s responsibility to student education.
“I plan to give some context to the $56 million the CSU has committed to OpenAI, and help to demystify some facets of the technology,” Murray wrote in an email.
Murray also believes that students should be participating in decisions about adopting educational technology through shared governance. He also expressed concern that university investment in AI could support efforts to reduce faculty, staff and student employment.
At the same time, he said the discussion should move beyond policing students’ chatbot use.
“I think choice is important here, and anyone should feel free to use whatever technology they want to use,” Murray wrote. “I think that policing student use of ChatGPT or other chatbots is a poor use of faculty time.”
Davalos sees the teach-in as an opportunity to bring students together for discussion and build connections on a campus where commuting, work, and other obligations often limit participation.
Beyond this campaign, he is hoping that SQE can create a lasting space for students to raise concerns and organize around campus issues.
Students interested in Tuesday’s teach-in or future SQE activities can follow the organization through Instagram at @sqecsusb.
