TLDR: A student at Allegheny College’s Biology Department voices strong reservations about a new policy allowing varying degrees of AI use on assignments. The student argues that generative AI, such as ChatGPT, undermines critical thinking, poses significant environmental and data privacy concerns, and frequently produces inaccurate, ‘hallucinated’ information, especially in scientific fields. The policy, which categorizes assignments from ‘no AI assistance’ to ‘creatively solve tasks with AI,’ is seen as an embrace of a fundamentally unethical technology rather than a resistance to its detrimental impacts.
Allegheny College’s Biology Department has recently introduced a new policy regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in assignments, a move that has drawn criticism from at least one student. Andy Germann, a staff writer for The Campus, expressed profound disappointment with the policy, arguing that it fails to address the inherent problems associated with AI and instead attempts to normalize its use in academic work.
Generative AI, exemplified by tools like ChatGPT, has become a pervasive presence in educational institutions. A Pew Research Center study from January 2025 revealed that over a quarter of teenagers (ages 13-17) utilize AI for schoolwork, a figure double that of 2023, and likely an underestimate due to underreporting. This surge has compelled educators to confront the blurred lines between technological adoption and academic dishonesty. Germann firmly believes that using AI to complete assignments is tantamount to plagiarism, as it bypasses the development of critical thinking and problem-solving skills integral to learning.
To manage AI usage, many institutions have implemented policies focusing on ethical use, plagiarism, and disclosure. Allegheny College, for instance, requires students to cite the specific large language model (LLM) used, the prompt given, and the date of use. However, Germann notes that this method lacks transparency, providing no insight into the AI’s response or its integration into the student’s work.
The Biology Department’s new policy categorizes assignments into five levels of AI permissibility. Level one mandates ‘entirely without AI assistance,’ while level five encourages students to ‘creatively solve the task given by your instructor, potentially co-designing new approaches with your instructor.’ Germann contends that this approach is flawed, as it seeks to teach ‘correct’ AI usage, which they believe does not exist due to fundamental ethical issues.
One primary concern highlighted is the environmental impact of AI. AI servers, housed in massive data centers, consume vast quantities of freshwater for cooling, often siphoning millions of gallons daily from nearby rural towns. These practices disproportionately affect already water-stressed regions, leading to communities facing drinking water shortages. ‘Stealing gallons of freshwater from vulnerable populations so you can correct wrong information you could have written yourself is not a sufficient argument in favor of AI in schools,’ Germann states.
Another ethical dilemma revolves around data privacy and consent. LLMs are trained by scraping immense amounts of data from the internet, including scientific articles, social media, and professional platforms like LinkedIn, often without explicit user consent. This practice raises significant cybersecurity issues and has sparked backlash, particularly from artists whose work is used to train AIs that then compete with their livelihoods.
Furthermore, the policy creates discrepancies among professors, with some strictly limiting AI and others actively encouraging it. Germann warns that relying on AI for scientific disciplines like biology and chemistry is particularly problematic. LLMs are prone to ‘hallucinations,’ fabricating sources and publishers using real scientists’ names, making it a time-consuming and often futile effort to verify information. ‘Because of the nature of biology research and processes, I have never seen a completely correct response from a LLM when asked about a specific biological process,’ Germann explains, noting that AI often invents processes and sources to fill knowledge gaps.
Also Read:
- Generative AI’s Potential to Reshape Human Cognition and Communication
- Princeton’s Class of 2029: Navigating Artificial Intelligence in Academics and Beyond
While acknowledging arguments that correcting AI-generated misinformation could foster critical thinking, Germann dismisses this as insufficient justification for the environmental and ethical costs. They advocate for alternative, more effective methods of skill development, such as critically analyzing research papers. The student concludes by urging for future policy adaptations that actively ‘steer away from AI, rather than try to embrace it,’ emphasizing the responsibility of educators and younger generations to prevent AI from dominating human lives and the planet.
