Fast, free and virtually undetectable, ChatGPT offers a tempting combination of ease and stealth. While it can be used as an on demand, universal tutor for the ambitiously inquisitive, it can also serve a secret substitute thinker for the time-pressed, disillusioned or simply unscrupulous.
The line between learning aid and cheatbot isn’t obvious. But there are clear cases. Ask it to help you understand Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion? Sure. Direct it to write a paper on Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion which you plan to submit as your original work? No.
Similar logic would seem to apply to Ethics Bowl. Enthusiastic, dedicated bowlers can expand their thinking after hours, engaging a tireless conversation partner with an unmatchable knowledge base, and they can do it without the fear of asking a stupid question or suggesting something taboo. On the other hand… a team could feed AI the case and discussion questions (ChatGPT now has direct access to the internet – just provide a hyperlink to the case set), subcontract every bit of the analysis with the right prompts (see the experiments at the end of the attached article), memorize and regurgitate a received view, and as a result learn and grow very little. Such a team might score well on their initial presentation, but would risk an embarrassing exposure during judge Q&A. Maybe judge interaction will be our primary weapon for combating chatbot abuse. But rest assured that in this season’s bowls, many, many teams will have used ChatGPT and services like it. It is therefore incumbent upon the Ethics Bowl community to think hard (and fast) about appropriate guidelines, and to share them as a baseline to be refined as soon as possible. Even if imperfect, almost any guidance would be preferable to silence, for silence implies anything goes.
Back in April, we invited ChatGPT itself to write this article on the risks and promise of using it for Ethics Bowl prep. Today, naturally intelligent organic person Michael Andersen adds to the discussion with the below article. Organizers, judges, coaches: if you’re not convinced this is a risk (an AI drawback denier), click one of Michael’s experiments at the end of the article. Still not worried? I actually had second thoughts about publishing the prompts he used to guide the AI to provide a full presentation script. But the community needs to understand the tool’s power. Plus, if Gen X dinosaurs like Michael and myself can stumble our way through an AI conversation, the Gen Z tech wizards whom we work so hard to honorably mentor aren’t likely to learn anything new.
Last, if you have thoughts on acceptable use of AI for Ethics Bowl prep, please share them in a comment. We’re also considering some sort of video discussion in the near future – shoot me an email if you’d like to be included, and thanks to everyone in the community who’s taking this topic seriously.
