Everything so far was to get here: a real course, a real assignment, a real research practice — and a defensible decision about where AI belongs in each.
This is Session 2's “what are we trying to do?” turned into a tool. Answer for one concrete assignment you teach. It will weigh the answers and recommend a modality — analog, hybrid, or fully-AI — with the design moves and the evidence behind it. It is a structured prompt for your judgment, not a verdict from on high.
Take a course you actually teach. Sketch it three ways — fully analog, hybrid (AI as co-worker), fully-AI. For each version: what does it preserve, and what does it forfeit?
Pick the modality the tool (and your gut) point to. Name two or three specific changes to assignments or assessment you would make on Monday — not aspirations, edits.
What human skills is this course really trying to impart? Has AI changed which of those still need protecting — or which are even worth teaching now?
Every modality loses something. Say the loss out loud and decide whether it's worth the gain. A decision you can defend beats a rule you can enforce.
The ethics of AI in higher education is not just student plagiarism. It includes how we use AI — in the classroom, in research, and in how we communicate with each other. The same questions apply to your research program: which uses is it important to try, which to adopt, and which are ambiguous either ethically or in real utility?
Ideation and counter-argument; literature-search prompting with fact-checking; language polishing; turning analysis into visualizations. Disclose where it shaped the work.
AI as analyst or modeller — beware the illusion of explanatory depth, the illusion of exploratory breadth, and ML “leakage.” Train the method, not just the prompt.
Letting AI autonomously write substantial or integral parts of the work; uploading confidential or third-party data; using AI to evaluate others' performance.
Not a policy. A practice: understand the machine honestly (Session 1), decide what you believe it is and what you're protecting (Session 2), reason from the real evidence and its limits (Session 3), and redesign on purpose — course by course, assignment by assignment (Session 4). Then revise, because the system will change and so should you.