Bredenoord: Mentioning AI use in speeches is nonsensical

The Executive Board has no plans to always be transparant about the use of AI in speeches or social media posts. Executive Board chair Annelien Bredenoord said this in response to questions from the University Council following EM’s article about the Executive Board’s use of AI. She called articles like these in the media a ‘witch-hunt’.

On Tuesday, a council member asked rector Jantine Schuit to reflect on the Executive Board’s own use of AI and the example it sets. “For speeches and LinkedIn posts, we are supported by the press office. They use AI to summarise, translate, structure and strengthen the message. It helps us prepare. It is not the case that the ‘machine’ decides what we must say.”

The council member then asked whether it was not important for the Executive Board to be transparent about its use of AI, just as students have to be for assignments and essays.

Witch-hunt

Executive Board chair Annelien Bredenoord told the council member that AI is a ‘disruptive core technology’. “What we need to do is teach our students and staff how use AI in society. If not, we’re not doing our jobs.”

She criticised the ‘witch-hunt’, as she called it, in articles accusing prominent figures such as prime minister Rob Jetten, minister Rianne Letschert and the Executive Board itself of using AI. “The question of whether we use AI is a nonsensical discussion. The issue is not: oh do you use AI? It is how we use it and when we should use it. And using AI for communication is completely different from using it for a thesis or study assignment.”

Critical approach

Another council member stressed that the council was not calling for a ban on AI. “We are concerned with taking a critical approach to AI and with transparency. If an academic wants to use AI, whether for final editing, grant applications or PowerPoint presentations, they should say so. You are role models. AI is not very environmentally friendly, so that is a bit at odds with the university’s core values.”

Bredenoord acknowledged that AI sometimes conflicts with Erasmus’ values. “There is always a trade-off in how you use AI.” She called mentioning the use of AI in a speech nonsense. “My speeches have always been written with the help of a speechwriter, and that’s never been an issue. How is this different?”

Signal to students

A staff member on the council described how difficult the ‘battle’ with students can be when it comes to using AI in essays. “You underestimate how difficult that is and how this lands with students and staff”, he told the Executive Board.

The council asked the Executive Board at least to take on board the comments from the university’s representative body. “Reflect on why it feels so uncomfortable to mention that AI has been used”, said a council member. “A speechwriter feels different, after all. LinkedIn may be a different case, but it does send a signal to students. We would like to hear the Executive Board’s position on this.”

AI@EUR

The discussion about the use of AI was part of a wider debate in the council about developing a position on the issue as part of the AI@EUR project. AI@EUR is trying to map all the AI initiatives at the university, but this is proving difficult. Schuit said: “There is no easy way to bring these people into contact with one another. Some use external tools, while we have internal tools.”

The university already offers some of its own tools, such as the Desidera chatbot. “We don’t want every faculty to decide for itself which tools to use”, said Schuit. More people will be hired for the project in the coming period.