AI Course Delivers Few Answers, Many Questions and Even More Discussion

Zoe Yanco ’25 had serious reservations about engaging with artificial intelligence.

What if it were addictive? That is, what if she started using AI and couldn’t stop? What if it stole her ability to think critically and independently? Where was the line between learning new technology and flat-out cheating? Yanco was intimidated and overwhelmed at the thought of using ChatGPT or its Google counterpart, Gemini. 

In fall 2024, the sociology major took the course Social Class and Power, taught by Jeff Dixon, professor of sociology. In that seminar, he touched on AI literacy and how it might be deployed in the workplace. Yanco, an education minor, aspires to be a school social worker or teacher in an urban setting. The course material — and Yanco’s independent reading about AI and education — prompted other serious questions: Would AI exacerbate issues of bias and inequity? Would it harm students' ability to form meaningful relationships? Would it make teachers obsolete?

“I knew I wanted to delve deeper into a thoughtful examination of AI,” Yanco said. “I was eager to explore how AI intersects with social life and its broader implications on issues of equity and ethics.”

So, the senior enrolled in Dixon’s spring 2025 seminar, Artificial Intelligence (AI), Social Life and Society.

In the course, students have reviewed and debated AI’s use in scenarios traversing personal, professional and public experience, and in sectors, including education, health care and the legal system. They have weighed the pros and cons of AI companions as an antidote to loneliness and whether artificial intelligence might lessen or eliminate educational disparities in poor or otherwise under-resourced communities. They have examined the technology in relation to issues of privacy, bias, employment screening and copyright infringement. They have presented case studies and written papers that delve deeply into theoretical, ethical and policy debates on its use.

Dixon, who studies immigration, worker insecurity, politics and neoliberalism, among other subjects, is well acquainted with Yanco’s feelings of apprehension and curiosity. Ambivalence fuels his interest in AI, too. Dixon serves on the College’s Institutional Review of Artificial Intelligence Task Force, a large group of faculty and administrators considering the potential for AI and other technologies to be integrated into institutional practices.

Full disclosure: Dixon is not what you’d call an early adopter or even a technology enthusiast, per se. His social media presence is limited to his LinkedIn profile. But, being as he is a scholar of worker insecurity — Dixon also teaches a seminar called Precarious Work — he recognized early the potential threat AI posed to certain industries and the opportunities it offered others. He resolved to research and teach on the topic more directly.

“I took a kind of ‘Game of Thrones’ approach to AI, which is adapt or die,” Dixon said.

Now he’s seeing his trajectory mirrored in the experience of his students.

'Views have become more nuanced'

“One of the things I’ve been impressed with is my students saying that their views have become more nuanced,” Dixon said. “It depends upon the use case. So, whereas some students might be a little more positive on AI and health care, they might be much less positive about AI in work and business.”

In other words, it’s difficult to be middle of the road when it comes to AI.  

Sarah Walicki ’25 is a sociology major with minors in deaf studies and environmental studies, and will pursue a master’s in general and special education after graduation. Like Yanco, Walicki too began her study of AI with an apprehension approaching resistance. “Walking into class on the first day, I was anti-AI,” she said. “I was uninformed and had been taught that AI could only be considered cheating.”

Now, Walicki holds a pragmatic view: “I’m beginning to see the potential for a career focused on the ethical implementation of AI in education — something I never imagined was within reach.

“I am a realist,” she continues. “I understand the reasons why AI has seeped into our daily lives, our relationships, our schools and our legal/justice systems. AI’s development is inevitable; it will reshape our future and I would rather be proactive about it.”

Dixon’s course has become a talking point in Walicki’s graduate school interviews. 

“It has allowed me to highlight my ability to make connections across disciplines and apply AI to my goals as an educator,” Walicki says. “One of my main goals is to provide equitable, fair access to education through understanding social contexts that shape a student’s classroom experience. My practice as an educator will inevitably have components of AI and I want to develop alongside technology, rather than rush to catch up.

“Am I still scared that AI will diminish our ability to critically think? Yes,” she notes. “But I think being knowledgeable about the positive uses will lessen that impact. While I am beginning to see the positives of AI, I still grapple with the moral dilemma of what increased technology means for humanity. One of the hardest things about this course is that AI is not clear-cut. Within a single class, my opinions are challenged and changed. I think that’s what this course is all about — not teaching a single narrative about AI, but to prepare us as students to live in a modern and adapting world.”