“Our teaching has become indelibly entwined with AI,” wrote the Artificial Intelligence and Education Working Group at UChicago in July 2025. Despite this assertive statement, the University’s stance toward AI is unclear, inconsistent, and ineffective—leaving both students and the University unprepared for a new world where AI is everywhere.

Frankly, the University’s blurry policy is ineffective in controlling AI exploitation. On UChicago’s student resources web page on generative AI, the University only provides vague guidance, noting that “[s]tudents at UChicago are expected to engage with generative AI tools responsibly.” It adds that students “must also consider issues related to information security, privacy, compliance, and academic integrity,” but it does not define any of these factors or offer specific guidance.

With growing access to the technology and a lack of meaningful checks, AI regulation is now a myth. As a result, many professors have started to transition from a no-AI policy to an AI-disclosure policy, but it virtually implies the same; Viewpoints Editor Camille Cypher expresses this concern in her Maroon article “College Writing Is Fundamental to Deep Learning,” stating that under these policies, “students are left to decide for themselves how and when to use AI.”

Amid this chaos, the University is neglecting even a basic solution: education about the internal mechanisms of AI and its ethical use. Many professors warn students about the dangers of AI. Ironically, likely only a few instructors will invest time in explaining the hazards of blind AI usage.

Consequently, many students simply view AI as a magic lamp that generates whatever they ask, with no idea what they’re dealing with. As Cypher claims in her article, students now carry the burden of judging when and where AI usage is effective while resisting the temptation to finish their tasks in a few clicks.

UChicago instructors—those responsible for providing an operative education to students—face this issue on a daily basis. Professor Mark Payne of the classics and comparative literature departments addressed this issue in an interview with the Chicago Maroon: “Students were using AI to generate what to say in classroom discussions [such that] people weren’t really talking to each other anymore.” However, Payne has not banned the usage of large language models (LLMs) in his classes given that such a ban would be unenforceable.

On the other hand, some University adminstrators, including President Paul Alivisatos, are more optimistic. Payne noted a discrepancy between the ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up point[s] of view.’ While many professors reject AI, deans encourage its presence in the classroom, making an effective and clear policy difficult to implement.

Naturally, the University is falling behind—and will continue to do so. UChicago’s current stance sharply contrasts how other institutes of higher education are incorporating AI in the classroom. In contrast to our policies, Stanford University provides faculty members with guides and videos showcasing how to incorporate AI into teaching, and students can easily find tips on approaching AI in studies on official school websites.

Furthermore, UChicago is failing to prepare students for dramatically shifting workforce requirements. While Meta, one of the biggest technology companies in the world, announced that AI will be allowed in their coding tests and interviews to recruit candidates who have adapted to an AI-friendly work environment, effective AI-incorporated tasks are hardly implemented at UChicago.

So, what has the University done to catch up to its latest trends? One example is PhoenixAI, the University’s desperate attempt to remain competitive in AI developments. Many, including Kaci Sziraki in her article “The AI Epidemic,” have claimed that this UChicago-branded ChatGPT is nearly obsolete, unused by students or faculty.

The University has also released an “Understanding Generative AI” video series, but the low viewer count shows that they haven’t effectively reached their target audience.

This leaves us with the question: What can and should the University and its members do next?

The primary and most apparent answer is to establish intentional, structured AI education for students and faculty members. Increased AI literacy lays the foundation for further discussions; knowledge of how LLMs function and their limitations raises awareness about current AI abuse and provides more insightful ideas.

However, education alone is insufficient. The University must adopt a unified, clear AI policy that eliminates confusion across departments, is shaped by a broad group of faculty members directly affected by and aware of the difficulties related to AI in the classroom, and is stated without ambiguity.

Most importantly, UChicago must embrace the reality that AI has become an integral part of academics and the workplace. In other words, the University must put more effort into familiarizing students with a changing world, whether through education or increased exposure.

In the meantime, students are left to grapple with the nature of AI: Is the machine in front of us merely a labor-saving device? Or is it something that enables us to do what we never thought possible?

Yeonwoo Cho is a first-year in The College.