Late last semester, a mailing list of Zoology Postgraduate students received a “not-positive email message” from their Head of Department. Critic Te Ārohi understands that the email was sent following some students putting critical post-it notes on an AI-generated poster made by staff. The email was subsequently shared with Critic.
The post-it notes, described in the email as “activism”, “warfare against AI” and “bullying”, were put on a poster for the Zoology Graduates Celebration that featured an AI-image of a kiwi with a tail (something that kiwis don’t have – only something a Zoology student would notice). The post-it notes encouraged the poster-maker to “use real art” and “critical thinking???”, condemning the posters as a “waste of resources”.
Lucinda*, a Zoology student, emphasised that no one wrote directly onto the AI posters. According to her, some of her fellow Zoology postgrads that were graduating from their undergraduate degrees were “upset” at this use of AI for their graduation poster, feeling it demonstrated a lack of effort. Hence, the post-it notes broke out. After that, Lucinda made her own hand-drawn poster featuring a weka (claiming that she wanted to partly “support the graduation” and partly “put in some effort [and] show that I can make a poster that doesn’t have to be made by AI”).
According to Lucinda, her hand-drawn poster then got “photocopied and plastered next to some of the AI posters”. Lucinda emphasised that these were not put on top of any of the original AI posters, and the photocopying was not done by her. In response, another post-it note was put on the hand-drawn poster from a Zoology professor who encouraged students to come and have a conversation about “AI, fair use and science”.
In a subsequent email responding to the saga, the Head of Department noted that they don’t want to “police” Zoology, and that they “are all adults”. However, they noted that if there was more “anti-AI sentiment” or “undermining of staff,” then they would have “no alternative” but to escalate the situation. “[L]et’s not go there…” the email reads. According to Lucinda, the “unknown threat” has concerned her cohort and herself. “These are the people that kind of have a say in my future… Like, it's really scary.” Lucinda said that she had “no idea” what potential escalation might look like. A University spokeswoman said that escalation should be interpreted as staff arranging a meeting “to discuss the situation with students.”
The Zoology Head of Department claimed in the email that there were many other avenues for students to express issues with AI then making post-it notes, but the Department was not a place to “advocate for your political flavors – especially when doing so in a rather unproductive way.” When approached about what these other avenues might look like, the University clarified that this could be raising the issue with a supervisor or lecturers, with its sustainability committee, brought as a topic for discussion to class, or for a suggestion/comment/question to be placed in the Department’s existing suggestion box. When asked for comment on the events leading up to this email being sent out, a University of Otago spokeswoman replied that “[t]he University supports and encourages free speech on campus.”
Lucinda alleges that the conversations she has had about AI use in the Department “haven’t led anywhere.” Her group of postgrads also had a class discussion about AI where they “discussed how disappointed we were with it, especially in the Department, and nothing changed.” She thinks it might have been “different for others who have tried”. The University spokeswoman noted that “neither the Department, nor the University is aware of any issues being raised about the use of AI in the Department.”
The Head of Department claimed the graduate students were “trying to be smart with a hand-drawn image of a kiwi to oppose imagery by AI”, but Lucinda clarified that when she drew the poster she asked her peers what animal she should draw and someone said to draw a weka. “So I drew a weka, it’s not a kiwi,” she said. She added that there was “no intended parody” with the original AI poster.
Despite Lucinda’s intentions, the Head of Department considered the saga to be “bullying-like in nature”, intentional or not, due to someone in the Department being an “AI specialist”. “I can understand that someone might get upset,” Lucinda admitted. However, she didn’t think the poster wars amounted to bullying. “I also know that the people were not intending to hurt anyone in any way and were very concerned that they had upset someone.” When asked if the University had any comment on the Head of Department’s choice of phrasing, a University spokeswoman replied “No.”
Critic asked Lucinda what her fellow postgrads thought of AI use within the Department and in their degrees. She alleged that while some of their lecturers have told them not to use it at all and that it's inaccurate, others have recommended using it for statistics, summarising articles, generating ideas, and helping with writing. Lucinda described this as a “huge disparity” within the Department.
The University spokeswoman noted that the Zoology Department does not have a standalone policy on AI use. However, the University has several overarching policies on AI and its use. The aim of these policies is to “promote AI use generally” within the University, restricting use only in “high-risk cases”. Student use is broadly encouraged except for specific types of events where it is restricted, such as exams.
In her personal opinion, Lucinda thinks that generative AI is not the “next birth of the computer”, and that it’s a “pretty shit chatbot rushed to market before appropriate regulations and safety guardrails were put in place.” Damn.
