Universities risk irrelevance by failing to engage fully with AI

If you're suggesting I should have defined what is meant by a sector, or why I describe higher education as a sector, I can only say that - with limited wordcount and widespread acceptance of its general meaning - I felt it was unnecessary. The guidelines for submission of these articles emphasize a more journalistic - rather than academic - writing style, and there is a requirement to keep submissions concise. As for describing other sectors that have not so dismally failed, I point to three in the article - but there are dozens that might be highlighted. It's important to emphasize, however, that I'm referring to the failure to strategically engage - there are many examples of poor execution across all industries and sectors. The point about Enlightenment principles formed part of a longer positioning introduction for the article, that was subsequently trimmed - I agree, in its current form, the treatment is a bit crude but it remains relevant to the question of institutional resistance.

This is the most common response I hear from other faculty. I acknowledge the precautionary principle, and it is well made, but it abdicates responsibility for environmental adaptation in favour of a custodial function in which the preservation of institutional norms is paramount. Against such a backdrop, change will always constitute a bigger threat than adherence to the status quo. The belief that a rigorous case will transcend such conditions is, therefore, highly questionable - but I would be more inclined to accept it if those espousing the argument had greater technology literacy. Academic integrity and technology adoption are not mutually exclusive - but, if we're to preserve a meaningful application of academic integrity, we need to understand the technology. I accept, nonetheless, the point about vested interests.

I don't see myself as advancing particular technological interests - in fact, the issue isn't addressed by the article. If, by merely engaging in discussion of AI reform in higher education, you believe I am doing so, I think it will take more space than we have here to do that conversation justice. I would take issue with one point, however - I don't believe universities have a monopoly on critical thinking, and I don't think we should assume that students see universities providing informed critical discussion of these issues.

Thanks for your highlighting the issue of function and role - I'm embarrassed to say, I don't think its the first time I've used them interchangeably in this way. As for your criticism of the sentence, I accept that the characterisation doesn't reflect a more diverse and nuanced appreciation of these issues but my purpose was to present the more extreme position - and I have certainly encountered such views, and heard them espoused, over the years. Indeed, as we've seen in recent discussions of political developments in the United States, there are many who continue to subscribe, at some level at least, to the general sentiment.