Upon the introduction of ChatGPT, many educators were initially alarmed. They questioned the future of higher education and philosophy, which rely on thoughtful reflection and carefully composed writing. However, over the last two years, I have come to a different perspective: the real issue is not AI’s ability to outperform students in writing, but how it challenges us to define the purpose of learning and how to effectively impart it to students.<\/p>\n
In my philosophy courses at ASU, I have created assignments that integrate AI to achieve this goal. These tasks do not aim to detect or prevent AI use. Instead, they require students to use AI in a way that minimizes cheating and maximizes learning. AI serves as a tool for engagement rather than a threat, acting as a patient conversational partner that encourages students to deepen their understanding.<\/p>\n
This strategy is based on two key insights. Research by David Duran indicates that students gain deeper understanding when they teach by explaining and questioning. Additionally, Andrew Vonasch and colleagues show that people are extremely concerned with their reputation, to the point of enduring discomfort rather than appearing immoral. These insights reveal that students often remain silent out of fear of social consequences, not indifference. AI, lacking judgment and memory, offers a safer space for students to express their views.<\/p>\n
Philosophy requires inquiry and vulnerability, with students needing to take risks and possibly err in front of others. In a classroom where reputation is crucial, silence may seem prudent. Conversely, AI models lack ego and can handle students’ trial and error, providing a buffer that encourages intellectual risk-taking. AI becomes a pedagogical tool for fostering such exploration.<\/p>\n
One assignment, “Clap Back,” has students debate a customized AI that defends a philosophical stance, while students identify flaws in its reasoning. This lowers reputational risks and enhances philosophical skills, as students are more willing to challenge a machine than a peer, leading to increased participation.<\/p>\n
“Teaching for Botmerica” aligns with research showing students learn best by teaching. Here, students instruct an intentionally “ignorant” AI on philosophical concepts, forcing them to grasp the material deeply to correct the AI’s errors, promoting metacognition.<\/p>\n
In “Reverse Office Hours,” students lead discussions with the professor questioning them Socratically. This approach fosters reputation-driven motivation, encouraging students to prepare thoroughly and view reputation as a driver for excellence.<\/p>\n
The “Rock \u2019Em, Sock \u2019Em LLMs” assignment involves students training AI to argue opposing philosophical viewpoints, culminating in a public debate. This exercise emphasizes the responsibility of teaching and the reflection required, reinforcing learning through reputational psychology.<\/p>\n
The use of AI as an educational tool continues to evolve, providing new opportunities for engaging students in philosophical inquiry.<\/p>\n