Tags
ai, asu-prep-digital, chatgpt, generative-ai, international-schools, technology, technology-integration
Andy Williams used to croon that this is “The Most Wonderful Time of the Year.” For me, it’s time to update the curriculum for my class on Electronic Discovery and Digital Evidence at the University of Texas in the graduate schools of Law, Computer Science and Information Science. I’ve long built the course around a Workbook I wrote with readings and some two dozen exercises. But, when I last taught the course a year ago, generative AI was hardly a twinkle in Santa’s eye. Now, of course, AI is the topic that’s eaten all others. So, I’ve had to fashion a policy for student use of AI. I elected to embrace student use of AI tools, in part because legal scholarsip is artful plagarism termed “precedent” and–let’s face it–students are going to use LLMs, whatever I say. So, here’s what I’ve come up with. I’ll be grateful for your feedback as comments, most especially if you are an educator facing the same issues with advice born of experience.
Use of Generative Large Language Models to Assist with Exercises
1. Explicit Disclosure Requirement
- It is a violation of the honor code to misrepresent work by characterizing it as your own if it is not. Students may use generative LLMs, such as ChatGPT or Bard, for assistance in completing Workbook exercises; however, they must explicitly disclose the use of these tools by providing a brief note or acknowledgment in their submissions. Transparency is mandatory.
2. Verification and Cross-Checking
- Students may utilize generative LLMs during Workbook exercises but are required to independently verify and cross-check the information generated by these models through additional research using alternate, reliable sources.
3. Accountability
- While generative LLMs are permitted tools, students are held accountable for the accuracy and completeness of the information obtained from these models. Any errors or omissions resulting from the use of LLMs are considered the responsibility of the student. This policy underscores the importance of independent verification and personal accountability.
4. Prohibited for Quizzes and Exams
- Notwithstanding the foregoing, you may not consult any source of information, including AI resources, when completing quizzes or the final exam.
POSTSCRIPT: I add this a day after the foregoing, after reading that the Fifth Circuit’s proposed a rule change requiring that counsel and pro se litigants certify of any filed document, that “no generative artificial intelligence program was used in drafting the document…or to the extent such a program was used, all generated text, including all citations and legal analysis, has been reviewed for accuracy and approved by a human.” I recall shaking my head at how foolish it was when a grandstanding district court judge made headlines by requiring such certifications following a high-profile gaffe in New York. “Of course a lawyer must verify the accuracy of legal analysis and citations! Lawyers shouldn’t need to certify that we did what we are required to do!”
Yet, here I am requiring my students to do much the same. I feel confident in advising students that, if they use AI, they must verify the information and sink or swim based on what they submit, even if the AI hallucinates or misleads. Back in the day, lawyers knew they had to “Shepardize” citations to verify that the cases cited were still solid. Proffering a a made-up citation was beyond comprehension.
So, am I right to require explicit disclosure of generative AI? Or will AI soon be woven into so many sources of information that disclosure will feel as foolish as requiring students to disclose they used a word processor instead of a typewriter would have been forty years ago? I’m struggling with this. What do you think?
Ball in your Court 
Kimberly Reich said:
Craig – Excellent work (as always). One (minor) suggestion, I would add Grok to your listing of generative LLMs, stating, ChatGPT, Bard and/or Grok. I have been using Grok and it is pretty savvy and growing as a recognized tool.
Anyway, with regard to your policy, I find the timing of it relevant and very timely given the controversy Harvard University & their Board is facing over allegations’ that President Claudine Gay plagiarized her award winning dissertation 26 years ago.
A review of Harvard’s current policy on Plagiarism and Collaboration states: “Quotations must be placed properly within quotation and must be cited fully, in addition all paraphrased material must be acknowledged completely.” The policy further reads: “Students who, for whatever reason, submit work either not their own or without clear attribution to its sources will be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including requirement to withdraw from the College.”
All the Overseers of the Harvard Corporation have to find is one student in which this policy was applied indiscriminately or unfairly. With regard to citations and attributions, Dr. Gay does make reference to others in her work, but it can be argued that she does not comply with Harvard’s current plagiarism and collaboration policy — which unfortunately does not make her or the organization look good.
LikeLike
craigball said:
Thanks for the kind comment. I read the sections of Dr. Gay’s 1993 dissertation claimed to be plagarized and concluded that the charge was without merit. I felt Dr. Gay supplied sufficient attribution so as not to present others’ ideas as if they were her own. Were Dr. Gay not under fire for her recent congressional testimony, I doubt the charge would have been dignified with any attention whatsoever in the academic community, led alone the broader world. It’s a hit piece penned by a wannabe journalist with a political agenda who fails to discern the line between purported news and opinionated advocacy.
LikeLike
Kimberly Reich said:
Craig, I also concur (again) these journalists have a “political agenda” and that is to see DEI dismantled and Dr. Gay resigned. Personally, as a family member whose husband’s parents were Holocaust survivors, there are NO WORDS to describe how shocked and disappointed I am in Dr. Gay’s testimony before Congress. She is failing her Jewish constituency and no after the fact apology will ever be able to replace her disgraceful testimony. It said a lot about her and her Agenda for Harvard and DEI. Personally, DEI can (and does) work at other universities (like Tufts) where antisemitism is NOT alive & well like it is at Harvard. They have a BIG problem, which goes beyond President Gay, the Board needs to take a look in the mirror too in order to effectuate change and policy.
LikeLike
craigball said:
Well put, and I concur 100%. The responses offered were parsed to death and seemed a lost opportunity to better walk the line between college as a crucible for free expression and as a place where we protect the community from oppression. If it had been me, I pray I would have had the presence of mind to reply that, e.g., “it would be the rare situation where remarks like those described would not run afoul of university policy; but, I’d want to judge each instance on the facts and circumstance to be fair to all involved.” That wouldn’t have satisfied the Congresswoman, but perhaps it would underscore that speech advocating genocide has no place in a civil dialogue. BTW, my sister-in-law, Lis Tarlow, is on the Board of Trustees at Tufts, so I’ll pass along that you cite Tufts as an institution setting the better example. Her husband, my brother Steve, is a Harvard grad (BA and MBA) and a Jew.–as was our dad (Harvard JD 1932 and a Jew), both at Harvard when antisemitism was far more virulent and institutionalized than today).
LikeLiked by 1 person
craigball said:
As to Grok, I’d consider adding it, but it shows as being only available to X Premium users.
LikeLike
Kimberly Reich said:
You are correct. It is available only to X Premium users, of which I am one.
LikeLike
Kimberly Reich said:
That is awesome, Craig! When I was teaching my classes (remotely) for Tufts I was PROUD of ALL the post-graduate students I was teaching, as well as the DEI program in place at Tufts.
All of the weekly posts on the students bulletin boards wrote and their beliefs were diverse but not inappropriate. No antisemitism whatsoever and I had one Israeli student in my class who is now pursuing her PhD at Columbia. I do remember one incident involving an act against a synagogue and Jews (well before 10/7) the leadership acted quickly & responsively to make it CLEAR that antisemitism was NOT tolerated on campus. Because of the leadership at Tufts and the way in which they communicate and respond to the students & faculty it is evidence that universities can foster cultures of DEI programs without being anti semitic – Tufts being one.
LikeLike
Bill Hamilton said:
Craig, introducing generative AI into the law school curriculum is challenging. Students need to know the strengths and weaknesses (and nuances) of these “killer app” products that will revolutionize the delivery and provision of legal services. Last semester, I did not use GenAI in my pretrial practice course. I thought the students needed to draft complaints, answers, motions, etc., first to understand the challenges and to learn how to judge good work. GenAI was too new and unpolished. In the future, I will structure the classes to allow/require students to refine/modify/evaluate their work with GenAI. The problem of disclosure is different for students and for practicing lawyers. I suspect I will want to see my students’ work product before GenAI refinement and then the final product. Lawyers are different. Lawyers are bound by the Rules of Civil Procedure and Professional Responsibility, which provide more than adequate enforcement remedies. Such a demeaning requirement to disclose or certify checking GenAI use also ignores practicality. Isn’t it silly to require me to make a certification or disclosure if I ran a brief through a GenAI application and used a suggested word order? Maura Grossman, Judge Grimm, and Judge Rodriguez, among others, have agreed that such disclosures and certifications are unwarranted, serve no real purpose, are demeaning, and will have the unfortunate effect of discouraging the use of this important technology.
LikeLike