McMaster's restrictive AI rules prepare students for the workforce

Despite what students may think, McMaster’s restrictive AI guidelines will best prepare students for the workforce of tomorrow

McMaster’s AI advisors have not had an easy job dealing with the rise of AI. When Chat-GPT was first released for public use, the university had to quickly throw together provisional guidelines which were mostly prohibitive of the use of AI. Out of nowhere, a huge threat to honest academic work became available to all students giving the academic institutions little time to consider how to respond.

McMaster’s response has taken time, but the beginning of this year has marked the introduction of guidelines no longer considered provisional.

These guidelines are unpopular with many and the consulting process created rifts between the McMaster Students Union and the university administration. MSU president Jovan Popovic suggested that students need to be prepared to work with AI in a future workforce in which the use of AI is prevalent. Meanwhile, the university was greatly concerned about the significant risks that AI poses to university pedagogy by undermining student engagement with their coursework and learning

The final guidelines have fallen firmly on the side of mitigating educational risks, without a single mention of the AI skills that might be required for the future of work. While this may disappoint student union activists who fought for more permissive AI use, I think the guidelines’ are best for students entering the uncertain AI future.

The guidelines’ ultimate goal is to maintain the integrity of the university learning process. This process is one based on learning the methods relevant to any given field of study, rather than simple content-based learning. These processes are under threat by generative AI’s capabilities to produce text indistinguishable from that written by a human, to analyze data and to interpret primary sources.

AI’s abilities to do this work convincingly represents a fundamental threat to intellectual labour. The MSU’s position, informed by this belief, is that students need to familiarize themselves with using generative AI in order to prepare themselves for a workplace dominated by AI use. But this fails to account for experts' varied views on what a future with AI might look like.

Without denying its potential to change the landscape of work, MIT Sloan, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's business school, has discussed what the direct impacts on workers might be. It suggests that subject-matter experts and experienced employees will be increasingly required to work alongside AI, judging the quality of its output and the appropriateness of its use.

McKinsey, a globally recognized management consultancy, argues that humans will still have to check the work of AI to ensure it is correct and accurate. So, maintaining and fostering our abilities to write, validate sources and ensure the quality of our work remains essential. Considering the errors that AI can and does make, AI is best used for well-defined, job and company specific tasks such as searching through proprietary data. It is vital that we maintain and foster our creative and critical thinking abilities and not blindly trust AI with such important tasks.

McMaster’s new guidelines’ continued focus on teaching core skills is best suited to creating knowledgeable experts, ready to excel at tasks they are assigned and who understand where AI might help their work and the importance of verifying the accuracy of AI's outputs. Additionally the new guidelines’ promotion of the long, repetitive process of learning will create students prepared for a workforce defined by lifelong learning.

I believe McMaster’s current guidelines, old-school as they are, are in fact the best model for creating students ready to work alongside AI, regardless of how it may develop. Anyone can write a prompt for Chat-GPT, only well educated experts will be truly prepared for the work leftover.