Part 2 of an interview with Kirsten Davis
"Thoughtful legal educators are hungry for a set of best practices, and for ideas on how to avoid the problem of AI interfering with their students’ education. That’s really worrisome for folks; that AI use will get in the way of learning. Studies suggest our ability to learn requires effort, and AI can take away from that effort, so it can be dangerous to a legal education in that way. And my colleagues are hungry for conversation; somewhere to talk about this without feeling stigmatized, or that they’ll reveal they don’t know something or are doing the wrong thing.
The idea of AI “stigma” is real. I find people are still reluctant to talk about how they use AIthemselves, because.they think it’ll be perceived as the wrong thing to do. I just had a conversation with colleagues planning a presentation, and it was interesting to hear how varied our personal ethical boundaries were on AI use. One says, “I never use it for writing, only editing”; another, “I only use it for research”; another, “I use it for all the things.” That’s a lot of variation; how do we make consistent ethical boundaries in this context?? That’s what we’re all struggling with: to do the right thing by our students, by our scholarship, and by the law. That’s what faculty are hungry for guidance about."
Your new post is loading...
