AI is the new electricity.
This line, ORIGINALLY ATTRIBUTED TO PROFESSOR ANDREW NG, has been often recited as shorthand for the impact Artificial Intelligence may yet have on society. Almost a year ago, ChatGPT’s wider release sent shockwaves throughout the world, not just for technologists but for the public at-large. It was a bell that could not be unrung.
Of course, any new technology brings new concerns, and that perhaps has never been more true than with AI — especially in the classroom. Instant concerns over academic integrity and fears that AI will diminish students’ critical thinking ran rampant across college campuses. Many members of Marshall leadership recognized, however, that AI had changed the game, and there was no going back.
“This is an all hands-on-deck moment. This is something that every business professor needs to be talking about and thinking about in their own discipline,” said PETER CARDON, professor of clinical business communication.
One day in winter 2023, Cardon approached Dean GEOFF GARRETT and insisted that Marshall not bury its head in the sand. The school needed to lead. Garrett agreed and, coincidentally, so did RAMAN RANDHAWA, the senior vice dean for academic programs. Just one hour after Cardon left Garrett’s office, Randhawa walked in with the exact same message.
Garrett asked the pair to work together to bring Marshall up to speed.
Randhawa and Cardon stood at a pedagogical crossroads. Generative AI was advancing faster than educators could keep up. Just weeks earlier, ChatGPT version 3 consistently failed the bar exam. By March, the new model — ChatGPT 4 — passed with an A.
In May, the pair brought together over 100 faculty members for a forum and demonstration on generative AI. For skeptical instructors, Randhawa and Cardon pitched a simple but powerful theory: AI could eliminate busy work.
“We started with creating a syllabus,” Randhawa explained. “I went to ChatGPT and said, ‘I’m a professor at a top business school, I’m building a new class on sustainability. Can you give me an outline?”
The chatbot instantly generated a competent syllabus, but Randhawa didn’t stop there. He asked the AI to flesh out the content, alter lessons, provide detailed summaries, and even add the class schedule to his calendar. Tasks that would’ve taken hours or days were finished in a matter of minutes.
“The faculty were looking on, and their jaws dropped,” Randhawa said.
Clearly, this new technology had untold benefits. Yet, many faculty members still harbored concerns about AI’s potential drawbacks. Would students use the programs to cheat? Would large language models stifle their creative thinking skills? Would professors be replaced?