AI as a corruption ‘tool’ (2)
General Santos City—My former colleagues at a state university here have informed me about their disappointment with students who resort to using AI-generated materials to submit as part of their course requirements. They say it is hard to “discipline” their students because some of their colleagues are quite nonchalant about it, or are even pushing for the use of these platforms for course requirements. One older professor, now retired like me, has defended one of his students who was able to produce a dissertation in less than a year, and said, quite haughtily, that in this age of modern telecommunications, that is possible; and that academics like himself have to keep up with the use of these materials “kasi ito ang trend ngayon (this is the trend now).”
It is truly mindboggling how rigid academic standards have been distorted to mock scholarship processes of meticulous cross-checking and validation of information churned out not only by students but also by some professors themselves.
Before my retirement, I knew of one of my colleagues who resorted to “professors” Google and Wikipedia and compiled information from them about how to do computer applications like Excel in one’s report and had it published as a book with her as the author. It was her way of rushing to come up with the needed points for promotion to a higher rank as professor. One source of points for one’s promotion in the academic ladder is to show that one has done research, and has published research outputs in reputable peer-reviewed journals and publishing companies that have maintained high standards for quality and publishable materials. However, locally, only a few professors are able to do this. So the next best thing for some unscrupulous professors is to show they have already published something, even if the publisher is an institution of dubious reputation or have published something using their own money.
Perhaps it is not entirely the fault of the professors who want to go higher in rank, so they can also enjoy higher salaries that go with their promotion. Back when I was still active in the academic community, one’s teaching load of 18 to 21 units (equivalent hours of teaching in one week) could hardly allow ample time to do other things like embarking on a truly significant research project in one’s field of discipline.
I have written previously that in Mindanao, as in many other regions in the country, research and development takes a back seat in academic priorities. Ironically, one of the key functions of the academe among institutions of higher learning is to do research (and development after it) while also doing another primary function of instruction. If there are no external funds to support research projects, there is a slim chance for a professor or a learning facilitator in state colleges or universities to actively pursue research in their field of specialization.
In other words, for this group of academics, AI platforms have become like a God-sent opportunity to keep up with those who are prolifically writing and publishing, even if their action is a sign of indolence, but most of all of intellectual dishonesty, of corruption in the academe.
AI platforms have also produced sites used for misinformation and disinformation, as has happened in the previous elections when politicians resorted to the use of trolls for propagating falsehoods about their competing political candidates. This is another danger of not critically examining what AI platforms churn out—some of them can present very realistic images that easily convince the clueless and the naïve to accept them as the truth.
The Philippine government should start thinking about the initiative of the National Audiovisual Institute of Finland that produces AI-generated materials that teach even kindergarten-aged children how to distinguish fake versus real news or information. The Finnish government understands that for a generation to counter misinformation and disinformation, it is always worthwhile starting to teach children at a very young age so they will grow up to be always critical in any platform—AI or through broadcast and other media—and make judicious decisions as adults. Finnish teenagers are taught how to become “trolls” so they know the process of recruitment as trolls and they can make critical decisions in the event the same thing happens to them.
The question is, will our government be prioritizing this to curb corruption not only in intellectual pursuits but also in profligate spending using people’s money?
Comments to [email protected]
