California State University’s controversial $17-million deal to provide ChatGPT to every one of its campuses has been met with mixed results, with wide but uneven use across the system, high distrust of AI-generated content and broad fears that the technology could imperil job security — even as people say they want more training in systems they believe will be “essential” to their professions.
Those complex feelings were among the findings of the largest study of artificial intelligence in higher education to date, which polled 94,000 students, faculty and staff across 22 CSU campuses from San Diego to Arcata.
The survey, conducted by San Diego State University researchers last fall, shows CSU grappling with how AI is affecting assignments, classroom instruction, competition for jobs and academic integrity. It found nearly every respondent had used AI at some point, with personal use more common than for educational purposes.
Staff are most enthusiastic about the technology, followed by students and faculty — the group that is most divided, according to the survey results released Wednesday. Majorities of each also said they believe AI can boost creativity and innovation.
In a statement, CSU Chancellor Mildred García said she views the results “not simply as a measure of current attitudes” but “a call to action.”
“The CSU has an opportunity to lead higher education by shaping how AI can be incorporated thoughtfully, equitably and responsibly,” she said. “And we will answer that call.”
AI in the crosshairs
The new CSU data come at a pivotal moment for AI in education.
The university’s 18-month contract with OpenAI to license its ChatGPT chatbot for 460,000 students and 63,000 faculty members and staff expires in July. A petition with more than 3,300 signatures — more than half of them CSU students, staff or faculty — is circulating to call for an to end to the partnership.
At the same time, other universities are joining the trend. In December, USC announced it would provide ChatGPT to its 80,000 students, staff and faculty members at a cost of $3.1 million a year. Some campuses, including Caltech, are also using AI tools to screen applicants.
A CSU spokesperson declined to say whether administrators will renew their ChatGPT deal.
“We are considering all options that will allow the CSU to continue to provide students, faculty, and staff access to AI tools, resources, and training,” the spokesperson said.
The survey found that despite mixed views on AI, more than 70% of the faculty desired formal training on it, and about half of students do too.
How students use AI
The CSU survey was not specific to ChatGPT, but found it to be by far the most popular AI tool. More than 84% of students, staff and faculty said they use it to some degree. Others such as Gemini and Canva also ranked high, while the writing tool Grammarly was the second-most popular among students.
For those who named ChatGPT as their top tool, about 30% of students and 40% of staff said they used it daily. About two-third of students and staff, and more than half of the faculty reported using it at least weekly.
The majority of students — 80% — say they would not use AI to submit classwork to pass off as their own. Roughly 9 in 10 students also said they they believe it’s “necessary” for a human to check AI-produced content for accuracy. Higher rates of staff and faculty said the same.
Landon Block, a senior studying political science at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, said he “rarely” uses AI for a number of reasons, including “the intense environmental impact, local consequences of data centers around the country, moral issues on training and deployment, and losing/under-developing key skills.”
Block, who did not take part in the survey, said he has used his university-distributed ChatGPT account just once.
“However, I have many friends in more STEM-heavy courses who consistently, yet responsibly, use AI to help them code and implement class material. I’ve also seen classmates use AI irresponsibly to cheat or otherwise get around doing the work,” he said.
Katie Karroum, a Cal State Northridge senior majoring in communication studies, said AI has been “inconsistently used and applied.” The notion is expressed in the survey results, which found wide variation in how faculty members mention AI use in syllabuses or whether they encourage or discourage AI in classes.
“Something that I hear the most from students is them struggling with AI detectors and how they are can be very false,” said Karroum, who is vice president of systemwide affairs for the Cal State Student Assn., which released a white paper this year about CSU’s AI efforts.
Faculty divisions
Staff — noninstructional workers such as those in finance, information technology, clerical roles and food service — appear to view AI the most favorably, with more than 70% saying the technology has a “positive” effect on their work. About 64% of students said they believe the same is true for their learning.
Faculty members are more split. The study says “56% report a positive effect on their teaching and research, and 52% report a negative effect. Faculty are the only group in the survey where a majority report both.”
Still, more than half of the faculty, 55%, said they use AI to develop course materials.
Martha Lincoln, a medical anthropology associate professor at San Francisco State, is among those who are opposed to AI. Lincoln — along with Martha Kenney, a professor in the university’s Department of Women and Gender Studies — are behind the petition asking CSU to “invest in humans” and “reject Silicon Valley’s AI hype.”
“The way that I encounter AI is that I have to dedicate time in my courses now to confirming to my students that they’re they’re not allowed to use AI in homework assignments,” Lincoln said. “I have to read my students’ work to see if I can discern telltale signs of AI use, which is a very frustrating and wasteful way to spend time.”
Lincoln said she has had “to redesign a lot of my assignments and assessments so they cannot be easily hacked by AI use,” such as by doing in-class or multiple choice exams, or creative presentation projects.
Zach Justus, the director for faculty development at Chico State, said he has heard such views among the 900 faculty members he works with, but has also seen many who are excited about AI.
“We still have people that want to pretend this doesn’t exist. We still have people that are adapting and doing amazing work in real time. And we have people that would prefer to keep it out of their classrooms,” Justus said. “What I always tell faculty is, ‘Don’t outsource the thing that you love.’ If you love reading and then creating visuals for a complex article, great, keep doing that. But if that was the thing that you hated doing and weren’t good at, then you can get some help with that.”
The tensions are among those that Cal Poly Maritime Academy professors Taiyo Inoue and Sarah Senk explore in a podcast, “My Robot Teacher,” that they launched last year.
“We wanted a faculty-led space that made room for more than just hype or doom narratives,” said Senk, a literature professor whose project is funded by the California Education Learning Lab and looks at “how AI might push higher education toward better forms of learning than the ones we have settled for.”
“The big question for me is how to teach students to govern their own attention, judgment and thought in a society that increasingly treats them as extractable resources,” Senk said. “Over the past 20 years, it’s become easier and easier to give your thinking away. Companies compete for attention, platforms compete for your eyeballs, and now AI makes cognitive outsourcing feel frictionless. Higher education should be one of the few places still committed to helping students keep hold of their own minds.”
The post CSU made a $17-million AI bet. A year later, students and faculty give it a mixed grade appeared first on Los Angeles Times.
