By Clarrie Terleph, Third Year, English and Classical Studies
The ever-growing and expanding world of artificial intelligence can often feel daunting, with conflicting views across the student body on the educational value and fairness of AI in student work. Regardless, AI usage is becoming increasingly common in universities as reportedly 92 per cent of students utilise it for some aspect of learning. This leaves tutors with the difficult decision of how to integrate it into learning. Epigram spoke to some of the University of Bristol’s professors to find out what they think about artificial intelligence and its place in the future.
As artificial intelligence has infiltrated university learning over the past few years, the task of navigating the integrity and ethical implications of using generative AI has become increasingly challenging. The complex ways it can be used means it is difficult for the university to standardise rules across faculties and instead tutors are using varied approaches when integrating it into learning and assessments.
For humanities departments such as English, the use of AI is considered cheating and there are strict rules in place against its use, but for STEM subjects such as Engineering and Psychology, programmes are already beginning to integrate AI into tasks.
Mandy Poetzsch, an associate Professor in the Department of German, questioned whether AI is challenging fundamental aspects of some humanities courses, suggesting for languages specifically it poses the question, ‘how much do we actually need to write in foreign languages?’ She reported that AI is impacting languages courses by restructuring learning to emphasise culture; languages students will be proficient in cultural translations which AI cannot imitate. Similarly, Florian Bouyer, a lecturer in the School of Mathematics, suggested that with AI able to complete complex calculations, students will be able to focus more on their understanding. Bouyer compared AI to the creation of the calculator and argued that while the role of a mathematician might change, they will always be essential. In both of these cases, departments seem to be anticipating changes to courses in order to accommodate the impact of AI.
They have been released as cheating machines, Gao says, which turn all pedagogical relationships into a game of cops and robbers by fostering suspicion and paranoia.
In contrast, other tutors aren’t certain that there are convincing ways AI can be used for learning. Senior English lecturer Pam Lock believes artificial intelligence prevents students from learning crucial processes of editing and re-reading, ultimately leaving them reliant on someone else. Simultaneously, there are ethical and moral crossroads which complicate whether tutors want to use the software. For English Exams Officer, Timothy Gao, while AI can be useful, ‘we can’t start thinking of those things because of the way AI has been released and marketed by the companies which are controlling it.’ Chatbots like ChatGPT and Grok are controlled by companies incentivised by profit and a desire for intellectual dependence upon the software. They have been ‘released as cheating machines’, Gao says, which turn all pedagogical relationships into a game of cops and robbers by fostering suspicion and paranoia.
He is not alone in his concern, both Lock and Bouyer shared similar reservations regarding the ethical and ecological implications of AI use. Despite widespread belief that there is a divide in opinions between STEM and Humanities departments, many tutors appear to be united in their opinions on the ethical and moral concerns of increased AI use.
Not only are there these concerns surrounding the use artificial intelligence, but tutors also reported that work easily identifiable as AI is repetitive and formulaic. Gerald Jordan, a lecturer in the school of Psychological Science, has noticed general changes in the way students write, calling it the ‘McDonaldisation’ of language and says he misses seeing mistakes and quirkiness. ‘It’s scary that thoughts are being driven by a machine that standardises things’ says Jordan. This assertion was mirrored by Oscar Banjamin, a senior lecturer in the school of Engineering Mathematics and Technology, who reported he finds it reassuring to see typos in work. This creates a difficult disposition for students who both want to produce grammatically correct pieces of work, yet fear being suspected of AI use.
He believes it is ‘hopelessly naïve to think you can tell people not to use it’ and argued that rules will not deter students from using it, even with the promise of harsh punishments.
This does not mean that attitudes towards AI are entirely negative however, as several tutors reported they do see benefits in incorporating this software into future learning, if in a controlled way. Bouyer, for example, is of the view that students need to be trained better in order to draw out the benefits of AI, and Jordan stated that in the past he has tasked students with using AI to conduct systematic reviews of scientific literature which proved beneficial when used in conjunction with solid prior knowledge. In discussion with Oscar Benjamin, he believes it is ‘hopelessly naïve to think you can tell people not to use it’ and argued that rules will not deter students from using it, even with the promise of harsh punishments. His approach is instead shaped by a desire for students to grow alongside AI, allowing them the freedom to use the software if they wish. He reported that the Engineering department is moving towards an AI proof first year, meaning in the subsequent years of their degree students will be able to use AI without the danger of it impacting their understanding. These beliefs suggest that, at least for STEM, there are useful applications for AI’s integration into future learning, provided it is paired with a strong independent foundation.
Annie McNamee
Jasmine Symes
Ultimately, AI is not going away anytime soon, meaning we have no choice but continue to learn and adapt alongside large language models. That being said, Poetzsch speculates that tutors know as little or as much as their students and worries they have little breathing space to experiment with AI as guidance is changing constantly. All tutors interviewed stated that there have not yet been (as of May 2026) department wide meetings regarding the threat of artificial intelligence and rather it is currently a casual conversation between colleagues. This begs the question; what will the future look like if the influence of AI only continues to increase?
Featured Image: Epigram / Anna Dodd
Do you agree with the tutors' perspectives?
