The perils and promotions of Artificial Intelligence (AI) should not be news to anyone. If you find yourself asking what it is or why you should care, I have an index of AI posts on my website. The simple fact is that AI is evolving at an incredible pace. As with many other new technology advents and evolutions I have witnessed, the pace can be a bit challenging.
The news recently noted an English teacher who has "quit (the) profession" because of her AI frustration. She made a video about the perspectives and problems, and it drew "a million views on tick-tock," She complains that "technology (is) ruining education."
The teacher concludes that students are unmotivated to work on their English. They:
"do not know how to read because of read-aloud tools,""Have short attention spans because of the 'high stimulation"' of social media.""(have) unlimited access in the classroom to use AI, (and are) not going to do the work themselves,""turn in essays written by ChatGPT."
It is fair to say that she is critical of the impacts and effects of technology. She also seems reasonably disenchanted with the motivation and comprehension of the students. This effect is far different from the warnings I have voiced on disuse atrophy.
Disuse atrophy threatens a degradation of our skills, our muscle memory, if we do not exercise our skills and knowledge. What this teacher describes is instead an avoidance of gaining skills and knowledge in the first instance.
That reminded me of an insult lobbed years ago in The Mighty Ducks (Walt Disney Pictures, 1992):
"You could have been one of the greats! And now look at yourself. You're not even a has-been. You're a never-was."
That is the difference in a nutshell. We now witness some perception of skipping and knowledge avoidance based on the evolving technology's ability to be all and end all for us.
Ultimately, the quoted teacher concludes that AI is ruining the educational experience.
Et tu, Brute? (Julius Caesar, Billy Shakespeare, 1599) Or - What's good for the Goose? The issue may look similar from another perspective. A student is suing a college for reimbursement of tuition, according to the New York Times. She alleges that the professor phoned it in rather than delivering value. The bottom line: she "discover(ed) (the) professor was secretly using AI tools to generate notes."
The professor did not deny that. In fact, the student figured it out because the professor "include(ed) a stray 'ChatGPT' citation tucked into the bibliography." The student notes that if she uses AI to complete assignments or papers, she would be punished. She claims that she is denied the engagement of these tools in the learning environment, and perceives hypocrisy in the professor using them.
Note to students, professors have been phoning it in for decades (that I know of). That ain't an AI thing, it is a professor thing. Before you instructors get your torch and pitchforks and head my way, know that it has never been a unanimous thing. There are a great many talented, engaging, committed, dedicated, overworked, and able professors. I have known them, watched them, and labored beside them.
But, there have always been a few who were less than prepared, committed, or helpful. I will never forget the one who showed up to a class after an obvious three-martini lunch. After some false starts and stumbles on the lecture, he finally slammed his book closed and proclaimed "class dismissed" after about 15 minutes.
Another came to class regularly in tennis attire (people used to wear special clothing for tennis). He would prop his racket against the podium and blithely inquire, "Where were we?" Without the A-students to start the conversation, the poor guy would have been utterly lost. Not because he did not know the material, but because he could not have cared less. He proudly described his tenure protection to us one day.
The student's view of hypocrisy is nonetheless worthy of consideration. Well, to some extent. I have had many experiences in school and work that included the old admonition "do as I say, not as I do." There is the foundational point that the student is "doing" to learn, and the professor is conveying knowledge.
Does it matter if the professor pulled a salient point from AI or from a book or newspaper? Is it fundamentally different? Is there a difference between pulling a salient point and merely copying everything for class from some book or newspaper? Is it the act, the extent, or the transparency?
But, what of the cost?
Years ago, there was a tragic incident in which a college student was striving to jump from one balcony to another. He did not make it and fell nine stories to his death. Many in Florida were discussing it.
A few years later, that incident came up in a conversation at the Florida Workers' Compensation Institute. One of the conversants, my friend Jack Langdon, loudly inquired: "Mr. Langham, would you jump from this balcony to that (pointing) for $100.00?" I demurred. The conversation moved on, drinks were served, and eventually he loudly asked: "Mr. Langham, would you jump from this balcony to that (pointing) for $1,000,000.00?"
I admittedly paused. That was a lot of money in my youth. As I was calculating the distance, drag coefficient, landing, etc., Jack loudly proclaimed: "Well, now we all know you are a fool, we are just haggling over price." That brought down the house. I never did get either the $100 or the chance to actually make the decisions. Thank goodness for that.
But, what of the cost?
A big element in the student's complaint is that she paid "just over $8,000" for this class (that seems steep?). Best Colleges says the cost per credit hour might "range from $120 to over $1,200." But a 3-hour course at $8,000 would be $2,666 per hour. Is it possible colleges really charge that for a class that is not taught by Beyonce Knowles or John Legend?
Nonetheless, it illustrates a point to ponder. If a customer pays a price for ________ (a drawing, a balcony jump, a brief, complaint, or request to produce), does it matter whether the producer actually produces?
If I pay a plumber for a sink repair, does it matter if they delegate the job to an apprentice?
If I pay a lawyer to draft a will, does it matter if they delegate the job to a paralegal?
If I pay an instructor to teach me business, does it matter if they prepare and participate or if they just flip to the answers in the back of the teacher's manual?
I mentioned above that non-participating instructors are not new. I had a professor in college who gave the same test every semester and everyone knew it. The equations never changed, only a few numbers. I had another who was so consistent that students blithely shared a set of notes named in the professor's honor, its title was her name and you could literally follow her lectures word for word in the "Sally book" (name changed to protect the slothful).
The college in this latest instance, Northeastern University, "ultimately decided to reject the senior's claim." There is some seeming acknowledgement that transparency is in order, but there will apparently be no refund. The only apology from the instructor is apparently regret at being caught. He goes on to explain in the Times article how he did nothing inappropriate.
Thus, is it OK to have the apprentice, paralegal, or AI do the work if that is disclosed?
Does the level of experience matter? Does the position matter? Paraphrasing Chicago (Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?, Columbia, 1969)
does anybody really know what value is?
(Care) does anybody really care?
(About value) you know, I can't imagine why
(Oh no, no) we've all got time enough to cry
Well, Northeastern may say nay, and perhaps others would too. But for the purposes of this blog, there is a focus on the law, the lawyer, and the challenges and responsibilities of professional conduct. In that regard, cautions on AI found in the American Bar Association (a voluntary lawyer trade group) Ethics Guidance may be a worthwhile read. There is also The Florida Bar Ethics opinion, and various instructive articles like Florida Bar Ethics Opinion OKs Lawyers’ Use Of Generative AI, But With Cautions.
It seems reasonably clear that lawyers cannot delegate responsibility to a paralegal, law clerk, or AI, but they might ethically delegate a task. There are seemingly answers on how that delegation might be billed, and a suggestion that transparency may be the critical point.
Is the customer entitled to know who is doing the work? Is the customer entitled to know that the work only required "x" minutes to complete, and "Y" minutes to review and approve? Or is it ethical for the lawyer to bill the time "it would have required?" Does such an entitlement to transparency extend to third parties who are eventually asked to pay the lawyer's bills?
There is much to digest, and that will require some chewing. It is hoped that in the process, few if any will end up choking. That said, there seem to be some important considerations and potential perils worth the time to think through, for both the plumber, the plumber's assistant, and the customer.
Are we being good customers? Are we being good service providers? Are we being transparent? Are we being professional? Will the Heimlich be required for us as we chew through to find the answer?
