Artificial intelligence is increasingly becoming a driving force in our daily lives, influencing work, transportation, art and, most important, education. Its impact on education only continues to expand, reshaping how we learn and teach by enabling tools like personalized learning, adaptive tutoring and more. Despite AI’s growing impact, GDS has largely avoided engaging with AI and has opted to ban it from academic settings almost entirely. GDS must shift its perspective on AI by encouraging conversation about productive use of AI platforms, rather than imposing restrictive policies that limit students’ exploration.
The Family and Student Handbook states that students may not “use generative artificial intelligence without express permission from the teacher.” However, this rule fails to acknowledge AI’s potential in academic environments. Relying on permission from teachers to use AI limits students’ ability to explore this new technology in an academic setting, limiting their exposure to primarily outside the classroom. By restricting students’ use of AI, the rule aims to prevent plagiarism but oversimplifies AI use through its total ban. There is no distinction between responsible use and cheating.
Instead of the current restrictive policy, GDS must shift to a proactive approach, leading more conversations about AI and integrating AI use into the curriculum. AI use can be responsible when students are provided with clear guidance on how to use it properly. Integrating AI provides students with hands-on experience with AI, and allows them to experience AI’s beneficial applications for learning such as tutoring.
Math teacher Jason Aigen suggested that AI tutoring would be a positive use. He said using AI as a tutor would be better than “having to pay someone or freak out and have to get to the Math Center.”
AI tools like study materials and personalized feedback are other positive uses of AI. Negative use involves using AI to cheat on assignments, plagiarizing writing with AI generated text and relying on it to complete assignments. Because the policy treats all uses of AI identically, students do not understand the distinctions between positive and negative use. They are not prepared to navigate AI responsibly and ethically when given permission by teachers under the current structure.
On the first day of chemistry this year, my teacher told us that we were allowed to use AI to study and help us with our lab reports, which made a noticeable difference for me in the class. AI helped me learn concepts in chemistry through tailored resources, such as practice problems and study materials. It enhanced my learning and made the class less stressful for me.
AI has helped me retain topics better by providing personalized quizzes, flashcards and other study materials. Additionally, it helped me grasp topics I was weak on by thoroughly explaining the concepts and generating targeted practice problems. After checking with the concepts we covered in class, I confirmed that the content that AI provided was accurate and aligned with our coursework, ensuring that the information was reliable.
“I was allowed to use AI last year in Spanish to study,” sophomore Matias Sevak said. “It’s a great resource. I was able to create my own quizzes and test myself, which was really helpful.”
More discussions about AI would equip students with practical skills and a clearer knowledge of ethical considerations, such as avoiding over-reliance on AI, ensuring originality in their work and abiding by academic integrity. Without this knowledge, students risk being left behind as AI continues to become integrated in everyday life.
The AI in a Human World track of the GDS Policy Institute offered a glimpse at what a proactive approach could look like.
Last summer, Director of Community Engagement and Experiential Learning Leigh Tait joined the track on their trip to San Francisco. Tait explained in an interview that the track discussed topics with AI experts in Silicon Valley. “One of the things we heard from basically everybody is that AI is here and here to stay,” she said.
(Julia Fisher, the Bit’s faculty advisor, is the AI in a Human World track lead.)
Tait’s exposure highlights the impact that conversations can have. She explained that she “went in [on the trip] knowing pretty much nothing about AI,” and, by the end, “walked out feeling like I at least knew what some of the arguments on different sides of the conversation were.” These sides included proponents advocating for AI’s potential in innovation and efficiency, and skeptics raising concerns about privacy and job loss. Hearing diverse perspectives gave her a clearer understanding of AI’s potential benefits and challenges.
Tait’s experience demonstrates why GDS’s current policy, which focuses on the risk of cheating, is insufficient. Learning about AI can help guide responsible use and implementation. Responsible use improves learning and encourages students to explore AI’s potential, gearing them for an AI-driven future. However, the current policy drives students away from AI, preventing their exploration and hindering opportunities to explore its applications.
“I really like using AI outside of academics,” sophomore Dev Narang said. “I wish we could use it more freely in school because it’s a great tool.”
Instead of banning AI, GDS should take an active and nuanced approach, teaching students how to use AI in a way that promotes learning, rather than hinders it.