THERE used to be a negative connotation attached to the word “artificial” and in certain contexts, the negativity still exists.
Some product labels take great care to promote their content as being free from all forms of “artificial flavouring, colouring, additives” and so on.
Presently, however, in the age of artificial intelligence (AI), the word “artificial” itself has taken on meanings that are not entirely negative.
We are reminded that AI acts as another supplementary tool to augment natural intellect, enabling human thinking to rise to the next level. Thus, our minds are relieved from repetitive and mundane tasks.
Complex problems may also be more easily tackled, leaving more time and opportunities for human creativity to expand and reach higher levels in other pursuits.
We are also constantly reminded that AI should be viewed as a tool that enhances human capabilities and efficiency, and is not meant to replace humans.
Cause for concern
In academia, the definition of original writing, work and thought is still very much a topic of concern, especially when term papers need to be graded and even when academics themselves produce work for publication.
To manage the real and existing problem of plagiarism and the unethical or unacknowledged use of generative AI or ChatGPT to complete assignments or produce examination answers, many higher education institutions have integrated proctoring tools, similarity checks and AI plagiarism detection.
Efforts have been made to design assignment tasks or examination questions in such a way that it is highly unlikely for responses to be externally sourced.
Some academics have taken the opposite approach, allowing the use of ChatGPT but requiring students to state the prompts they used and outline exactly how and for what purpose they used the tool.
There are also lecturers who provide an AI-generated opinion and have their students comment on it independently.
Despite all these efforts, I was dismayed when a colleague described how some students had “beaten” the system using even more sophisticated tools that can wipe out all traces of plagiarism from a completely plagiarised, AI-generated academic submission.
Another flip side to this is that now we have many new “writers” – creatives, academics, poets, even novelists, both fiction and non-fiction – whose only contribution to the actual writing is the prompts.
To be fair, providing the prompts for a finalised piece of work may also require skill and original thought.
So, it is a bit like being the architect who designs the building and the shape of all its parts while the AI tool does the labour of constructing the house.
But even that, some say, is highly arguable, especially in cases where all one needs to do is provide a prompt that requires AI to create something by copying the style of an established author or designer.
In the end, we may be becoming more adept at copying, curating or managing the curation of content rather than creating something truly new.
Shifting boundaries
Looking back, there was a time when the label “artificial” attached to a person meant fake or deceptive. But I have the feeling that, before long, artificial will be the new natural. Unless it already is.
The boundaries of telling half-truths or outright cheating have now become blurred, not only in academia but also in real life.
There was a time in the education scene when the divisions between right and wrong were clearly defined and we were taught very early on in school that copying or cheating during exams was wrong, no matter the method used.
Even so, to paint the past education scene as completely spotless or free of cheating would also be unfair to the present generation.
Those of us who have lived long enough to have been school students in the 60s or 70s would know accounts of students smuggling notes into examination halls or copying whole essays from “model answer books” and passing them off as their own.
There were also cases where entire, individually graded living skills projects were outsourced to individuals who had perfected the requirements of the task and happily churned out finished, examination-ready project pieces for a preset fee.
So, the truth is, there have always been attempts to cheat academically and some of them have gotten away with it and continued the practice in the working arena.
Perhaps the greatest difference of all is that, in the past, this was known as cheating, and if caught, there would have been consequences.
But now, the boundaries between plagiarism and originality are not as clear, nor are the differences between “create” and “curate”.
Added to that would be the redefinition of “artificial”. Authorship or co-authorship may also need redefinition.
For the sake of our students and the generations to come, I hope that at least the principal possession of the word “thinking”, or the primary act of thinking itself, will remain with them and not be relegated, outsourced or leased to less-worthy, artificial owners.
Dr G. Mallika Vasugi, who currently teaches at a local university, provides insights into the teaching profession. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.
