Welcome to the forefront of conversational AI as we explore the fascinating world of AI chatbots in our dedicated blog series. Discover the latest advancements, applications, and strategies that propel the evolution of chatbot technology. From enhancing customer interactions to streamlining business processes, these articles delve into the innovative ways artificial intelligence is shaping the landscape of automated conversational agents. Whether you’re a business owner, developer, or simply intrigued by the future of interactive technology, join us on this journey to unravel the transformative power and endless possibilities of AI chatbots.
When the AI revolution was first unleashed, the University of Alaska formed a Statewide AI Advisory Committee. Last summer, that committee provided an initial report to the Board of Regents that recommended a path toward maximizing the new technology’s potential while protecting against its risks. In June 2026, the board commissioned a strategic document called AI Engaged, which embraced all of the potential positives while sidestepping the risks.
Anthropic’s Claude generated the initial draft, a fact concealed for months until Oct. 9. Now, the University of Alaska Board of Regents will vote on Nov. 5 to enshrine Claude’s pro-artificial intelligence vision: “The Board of Regents declares its intent for the University of Alaska to embrace artificial intelligence as a strategic enabler of student success, institutional effectiveness, and Alaska’s global leadership in arctic and climate science.”
[Related coverage: University of Alaska regents weigh AI policy as student misuse increases]
The rapid time frame has given UA faculty insufficient time to respond, not only to the statement, but to the way in which the statement was created. We strenuously object to the statement’s problematic origins, rushed time frame and inadequate content.
Studies have documented a pro-AI bias in outputs from Claude and other large language models. Because of this and the financial incentives at play, use of Claude to generate an initial draft of AI Engaged is comparable to Anthropic representatives drafting the plan, a clear conflict of interest.
The UA system’s use of generative AI in this case also violates one of the core principles of AI Engaged itself: “Ethical and Transparent: AI deployments will meet clear standards for transparency, explainability, bias mitigation and the protection of intellectual property. Stakeholders will know when and how AI affects them.”
In this case, no one was informed in advance that their feedback would be used to prompt an AI output. Nor was attention given to the problem of bias. Disclosure came too late and remains incomplete. Stakeholders reading preliminary drafts did not know when and how AI was affecting them.
By ignoring risks, AI Engaged also undermines professors’ classroom policies.
Many faculty avoid generative AI in their own teaching and limit student use due to documented impacts on critical thinking, grade inflation and increased likelihood of cheating. Using AI to draft UA’s plan will be perceived by many students as deeply hypocritical.
AI Engaged directs an “embrace” of the technology but makes no mention of the academic integrity crisis and learning loss caused by the use of AI for cheating in classes, ignoring recent local reporting that raises these very concerns at our University of Alaska institutions.
AI Engaged is symptomatic of a rush to capitalize on the AI boom at the expense of sound deliberation.
The UA Board of Regents should abandon the document and go back to the drawing board to establish best practices and safeguards against undue influence from Big Tech and its hype machine.
Currently, board members and administrative executives in the University of Alaska are not required to disclose financial holdings in education or technology companies. This must change. Private investment in the University of Alaska is welcome, but robust safeguards must be put in place to ensure that technology companies aren’t influencing university policy in the process.
Trusting AI to generate UA’s AI plan is the wrong approach.
Allowing AI to speak first sets the harmful precedent of favoring a chatbot’s authority over human wisdom. More members of the UA community should have been directly involved in drafting UA’s AI plan. Because we are tenured professors, we are in a unique position to advocate for the university’s best interest without fear of disfavor by the powerful. The importance of faculty participating in “shared governance” is often misunderstood by board members who come from the business world, but it is one important tool to protect public higher education from distorting outside financial interests.
AI technologies promise to benefit society in a variety of ways. The University of Alaska can be an important resource for Alaskans as they consider integrating these advances in their businesses, schools and communities, but only if its response considers the inherent risks alongside its promises and leaves real humans squarely at the helm.
Gregory Hartley and Joel Potter serve as associate professors at the University of Alaska Anchorage. They are both real humans who wrote every word of this commentary all by themselves.
The Anchorage Daily News welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.
1
2
3
4
5
Anchorage Daily News
300 W. 31st Ave.
Anchorage, Alaska, 99503
