Ricardo Castanon ’30
Contributing Writer
Trinity’s stance on AI was paraded throughout the “AI Essentials for Success” orientation as neutral, but really, it was AI-appeasing. I arrived on campus just weeks ago and was greeted on-stage by an older stranger who fought chuckles to say that my generation’s grandparents would fall victim to scam calls with an AI-generated copy of our voices crying about a horrible accident.
It was impossible to take this warning seriously as the presenter used AI voiceover software to put his words in the mouth of a ram. In the same presentation, there were attempts to research simple inquiries with an AI model described as advanced. They were embarrassing failures, though, as the AI took minutes to give inaccurate and unhelpful answers that required rounds of refining. Imagine that – minutes of awkward silence and chuckles staring at an “advanced” AI perform the equivalent of a Google search.
The AI Essentials orientation, which took place on Sept. 6, made me realize the appalling lack of significance and seriousness given to this topic. The future of the world may be on the younger generation’s shoulders, but it is the responsibility of institutions and influential people to mold that world. I expected to arrive at a school that would at least handle that weight with seriousness. My worst-case scenario was an embrace of AI, but even then, I would prefer a serious discussion without the burned-in sight of a tortured AI ram. The consequences of the integration of AI into all aspects of daily life were not properly reflected in the orientation’s tone.
An alternative, less ridiculous orientation would exclude image generation akin to brainrot. There’d be no live demonstration of the same voice cloners that scammers use, and preferably, no laughing. I won’t pretend to be an expert on AI or an experienced presenter, but as a part of the audience, I know that the presentation I viewed was minimizing and ineffective. I wasn’t alone in this either. Everyone simultaneously looked around at each other, acknowledging and quietly laughing at the shameful display in front of them. (I was not quiet when the AI ram appeared on-screen.) Rows of students left at a noticeably higher rate than the other orientation presentations, which made complete sense to me.
Simply covering a serious topic is not enough to say it was handled with care. A safety presentation’s graveness, especially in relation to the audience, must be reflected within the context of the entire discussion. I question why this was not the presenter’s first instinct. To give an AI ram a sweater made of its own fur, then discuss a significant risk to our vulnerable family, was a silly train-wreck that I couldn’t keep my eyes off of, and a blatant attempt to relate to us by associating the presentation with AI-generated memes and stickers. After the second-hand embarrassment, I felt patronized, like Trinity assumed that we could only understand the significance of AI, be it positive or negative, through a direct conflation with social media. Regardless of what Trinity perceives to be the common stance on AI, it needs to understand that, although we often use irony to deal with hard circumstances and change, it is not justifiable for an institution or representative to use that irony. The satire is lost because institutions and their decisions are the reason for our concern. We and our families are affected, and when I worry for my grandparents who barely understand the technology before AI and are lost anew, there shouldn’t be an AI ram intimidating me.