Ensnaring students is not a long-term solution to the challenge A.I. poses to the humanities. This summer, educators and administrators need to reckon with what generative A.I. is doing to the classroom and to human expression. We need a coherent approach grounded in understanding how the technology works, where it is going and what it will be used for. As a teacher of creative writing, I set out to understand what A.I. could do for students, but also what it might mean for writing itself. My conversations with A.I. showcased its seductive cocktail of affirmation, perceptiveness, solicitousness and duplicity — and brought home how complicated this new era will be.
In the evenings, in spare moments, I began to test its powers. When it came to critical or creative writing, the results were erratic (though often good). It sometimes hallucinated: When I asked ChatGPT how Montaigne defined the essay form, it gave me one useful quote and invented two others. But it was excellent at producing responses to assigned reading. A short personal essay in the style of David Foster Wallace about surviving a heat wave in Paris would have passed as strong undergraduate work, though the zanier metaphors made no sense. When I challenged it to generate a poem in the style of Elizabeth Bishop, it fumbled the sestina form, apologized when I pointed that out, then failed again while announcing its success.