Staff Writer- Mary Athorp
Artificial intelligence certainly inspires a lot of heated debates these days—especially in academia. Some people encourage its use as a tool, while others discourage its use entirely. Gustavus is no stranger to discussions about AI.
If we look back to the 2024-25 school year, there was a massive controversy regarding an AI software pitched by admissions that allowed prospective Gusties to take a photo of themselves within an AI-generated scene on campus. Many people were upset about the use of AI art, given that Gustavus has plenty of incredible artists and art students. This year, it seems the take on AI is largely less tolerated. At least in most of my classes, we have to cite AI if we use it at all, even if it’s Grammarly checking your spelling. All this is to say, Gustavus has come to hold a general anti-AI position. That is, until recently.
Perhaps you took a moment last week to read the email entitled “You’re Invited to President Volin’s Inaugural Tree Dedication” that was sent out to the whole student body. Now, to most, this email seemed relatively harmless. The email simply informed the student population that there would be a tree dedication service for President Volin, as other presidents and important Gustavus figures have been honored in the past, and that everyone was invited to attend. Harmless enough, right? Wrong. Some students looked closely at the email and noticed the lack of human voice within the writing, as well as specifically plant based wordage and other gendered writing. Some examples of this include: “the fragrant Lilac Walk blooms each spring… representing the grace and community spirit… woven into its history.” and “We look forward to gathering to celebrate the beauty of our campus and the roots that continue to strengthen the Gustavus community.”
Acting on this voiced curiosity and skepticism, students at the Weekly put the email into the AI detection software, ZeroGPT, and the email came back 100% AI. Curious, indeed! Reactions to this finding were somewhat varied. Some students were indifferent, others were more disapproving. Is it right for an institution that largely opposed AI to utilize it in their communication with students? Truth is, I don’t have an answer.
Would it be nice to receive information from the genuine voice of our faculty? Sure. I’d like it, at least. Is it completely fair that AI is discouraged in student settings but not in administrative ones? Probably not.
However—playing devil’s advocate here—I think about all of the things I have on my plate. If I had a million emails to write, and just one of them AI could write for me and it would communicate the same information as it would if I were to write it, I wouldn’t count it out. I’m sure our faculty have even more things on their to-do lists. I imagine it would be logical—in this sense—to work smarter, not harder.
I will admit that the feelings inspired by the email, at least now that we know it is AI, aren’t necessarily positive ones. I feel cheated, a little bit. And, if the dedication of this tree is as important as they want it to be, why was it not important enough to take the time to write a genuine email about it?
All this said, I think it’s important to consider the purpose of any kind of media. I think it’s safe to say that the purpose of this particular email was to inform, and I also think it’s safe to say that it did what it meant to do. We know about the event and we know we’re invited. Mission accomplished. Furthermore, we receive tons of information in different ways—is the information discredited if someone used AI to share it? As I said, I do not claim to have the answers to these questions, but I do think they are worth pondering. And, if it really was inappropriate for AI to be used in this scenario, perhaps it is worth discussing more.