Illustration by Abubacar Keita
It has most certainly found its way into business and academia, and both have changed dramatically since the release of ChatGPT in 2022. Efficiencies have been increased in both fields, while others argue this came from compromising human effort by simplifying work and removing study retention.
Looking back to AI’s start in the mid-50s, its operation follows a sequential process, from its most simple origins to today’s exciting models made possible by faster computers. AI will identify patterns, calculate probable outcomes from patterns, and get as close as possible to the best outcome. All of which are dictated by the programmer behind it, who is human.
In improving each of its steps, one of the goals of the AI field was to “…build machines that will function autonomously in complex, changing environments.”
We first thought of trying to give this new tool a home in our dynamic world, and now it seems the script flipped. It feels like AI has taken the wheel and is the one driving the change.
Currently, it’s at a very strange point in terms of its lifespan and viability. AI is a great tool for compliance work and studying, but when it comes to automation of work, it becomes much weaker. AI currently does not have the attention to detail that is required of most projects, so it bars itself from being a complete replacement of human capital. This is why in the business sector, we are seeing a hiring freeze in white-collar jobs while companies wait to see the adaptation rate of AI, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Firms are slowly trying to cut costs by replacing entry-level white-collar workers with AI applications. This means that for universities to prepare students for the real world, they need to adapt quickly in order to produce young professionals who can supersede AI, while also maintaining schools’ academic and professional prestige. In a sense, universities that are not changing curricula are already behind. In the past, work has been based on the completion of tasks and projects.
Now, we are seeing a shift into classes that should be asking the second part of the project: What does this mean?
In addition to the business sector, we are also seeing a concerning increase of AI presence in the arts like music and illustrations. This means that artists will have to become incredibly creative and skilled in order to differentiate themselves from peers that may not even be real.
Universities’ responses to the workforce bring to mind the most ideal outcome: that we will still have a useful range of studies because we adapted our curriculum in the wake of AI.
McKinsey Global Institute, an organization that provides insights into economic trends, did a 2023 study that showed sectors like office support and customer service/sales are seeing a decreased labor demand. In this example, majors like business administration and communication will be affected.
Rather than advancing the skills themselves (public speaking, delegating tasks), courses should hone the “creation aspect”, something that administrators already do. Instead of creating new methods and workflows only for people, company administrators now revamp these models to become AI and human compatible.
Departments and the university as a whole have a responsibility to this and answering it means being proactive in its implementation.
Montclair State should consciously ensure students are prepared for the new work scene, and at the same time, consciously not undermine an educational institution’s purpose of challenging ourselves and the world by being a critical thinker.
We exercise that philosophy with questions that are on faculty and students’ minds alike: how much we should react to what the outside world demands of us, and are these demands “correct” in the long run? Taking a step back, where do we even start with answering such questions?
Computers drastically changed the way we work — implementation rate and oversight rate were not parallel with each other for a while. We had to learn how to leverage the two. The same should happen with AI. In universities, it is not just a question of whether we “… keep pace with technology, but to shape it–to ensure that the tools we create serve the broader goals of learning, equity and human flourishing.”
For young workers and students, AI is becoming an interesting oxymoron. Many critics, including students, are quick to point out the structural unemployment and uncertainty that it brings. And yet, we see many of these same student critics opening up ChatGPT or Gemini to help them solve their homework. If we are being honest, the word “help” may be a little conservative.
AI is undoubtedly an amazing study tool. Whether a person is learning a business, a language or music, it is almost guaranteed that AI can help with the learning process of these things, but its abuse is unfortunately just as easy. We can agree that AI has made math and calculus trivially easy, and it is up to universities to adapt their curricula to focus now more on the why and less on the what.
It is the duty of a university to ensure that technological advancements are kept up with, and it is just as important that students hold their universities accountable for their course curriculum.
