Exigency – The Affordances & Constraints of Superintelligence

The rapid progression of generative artificial intelligence raises profound questions about the future of human agency, creativity, authorship, copyright, intellectual property, and the role of writing in learning and knowledge production. In 2022 Anderson and Rainie, in partnership with the Pew Research Center, surveyed 540 “technology innovators, developers, business and policy leaders, researchers, academics and activists.” Remarkably, they found that 56% of the experts believe AI will limit human agency, expression, and creativity.

In a subsequent study, Rainie and Anderson surveyed and canvassed, in partnership with Elon University’s “Imagining the Digital Future Center,” hundreds of global technology experts to investigate their thoughts on AI and the future of humanity. One of the five major concerns expressed by these global experts was the fear that “humanity could be greatly enfeebled by AI:”

A share of these experts focused on the ways people’s uses of AI could diminish human agency and skills. Some warned it will nearly eliminate critical thinking, reading and decision-making abilities and healthy, in-person connectedness, and lead to more mental health problems. Some said they fear the impact of mass unemployment on people’s psyches and behaviors due to a loss of identity, structure and purpose. Some warned these factors combined with a deepening of inequities may prompt violence (Rainie and Anderson 2024).

More recently, Leopold Aschenbrenner, a researcher at OpenAI, has speculated, based on historical trends, that AI may reach GAI “superintelligence” by 2027 (see Situational Awareness). At that point Aschenbrenner predicts generative AI tools will be able to write as well as Ph.Ds in computer science — or any other topic in any language. Additionally, he argues that AI systems will no longer need humans to engage in inquiry. Rather, given their programmed thirst for knowledge, they will be solving new problems and creating new medicines, surgical procedures, and ways of knowing. They will be smarter than humans.

For Geoffrey Hinton, the “godfather of AI” achieving “superintelligence” may potentially be dangerous to humankind.

In summary, the exigency this course addresses is the question of agency — of whether the American people can be “masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants” (NEH). In response to eight creative challenges, students write with and about AI technologies. Experimenting with a variety of AI tools, they create arguments, songs, images, videos, deepfakes. Subsequently they reflect on their works and processes, questioning how the AI tools constrained and enhanced their self expression, thinking, and creativity.

Scope

Regarding scope, this course will not address the environmental consequences associated with AI usage — although that, most assuredly, an important concern. Additionally, we do not address privacy and surveillance issues. Students will also not have time to become proficient with all of the AI systems we play around with. Rather, the goal is to introduce students to research and scholarship on AI and to engage them in some popular AI tools. Ideally, this puts them in an agentive position, a position to reflect critically on the constraints and affordances emerging AI tools. Note as well that although there are multiple assignments, they are all fairly brief — typically a couple of pages each with several deliverables.

Requirements — Creative Challenges

Students will complete quizzes and assignments that must be written in class. They will also be assigned readings and required to annotate and discuss those readings.

The primary assignments for the course are seven Creative Challenges and one optional assignment:

1. Key Benefits of Writing Without AI for Students
2. How to Write Successfully with AI: Kairos-Driven Prompts
3. Build a Custom Chatbot
4. Practice Critical AI Literacies
5. The Future of Writing: Postplagiarism & Hybrid Writing?
6. Research How AI Constrains & Enhances Your Agency as a Human Being
7. Research Deepfakes & Misinformation
8. Imagine the Digital Future

Key Benefits of Writing Without AI for Students

For teachers, scholars and researchers in writing studies, writing is not merely a means of communication, but a powerful tool for thinking and learning. By engaging in the writing process, writers enhance their understanding of concepts, clarify their thoughts, and develop new insights. Given AI systems generate whole essays in seconds, the writing studies community worries hybrid writing — writing composed by humans in partnership with machines — will undermine human agency. They worry these systems will perpetuate inequalities as the LLMs (large learning language models) are based on the writing style and values of writers in Western, English-speaking countries. This limited representation may lead to a narrow worldview embedded in LLMs, which marginalizes or misrepresents the languages, dialects, and cultural nuances of underrepresented groups. They may reinforce gender stereotypes, racial prejudices, or other forms of discrimination when generating text or making predictions. Given this context, this assignment constitutes the first of eight creative challenges that undergraduates complete for Writing with Artificial Intelligence. Inspired by a writing assignment created by Professor Whitney Gregg-Harrison at the University of Rochester, this assignment asks students to reflect on the benefits they gain by writing independently as opposed to engaging in “hybrid writing” — i.e., writing performed by humans in collaboration with generative AI tools, such as Chat GPT or Claude.

How to Write Successfully with AI: Kairos-Driven Prompts

This assignment constitutes the second of eight creative challenges that undergraduate students complete for Writing with Artificial Intelligence. The essay that follows the assignment calls for writing teachers to replace the term “engineering prompt” with “Kairos-Driven Prompt Design.” Why? The internet is littered with tutorials/infographics on “prompt engineering,” which refers to the processes involved in crafting strategic prompts — prompts that elicit the information and drafts you need from generative AI tools. Learning how to engage in strategic prompting is a critical literacy for professional and technical writers and academic writers, so it makes sense for this assignment to follow the first creative challenge, which asked students to reflect on what they gained by writing without AI. Yet what distinguishes this creative challenge from “engineering prompt tutorials” is that asks students to frame their tutorials based theory, research, and scholarship in rhetoric and composition. Rather than writing from the perspective of an engineer, this challenge calls for students to adopt the persona, ethos, and diction of a “technorhetorician.” Rather than using “engineering language,” students use the discourse, register and knowledge-base of rhetoricians and compositionists.

Build a Custom Chatbot

Chatbots are automated programs designed to engage users in conversation, serving a wide range of purposes from customer service and education to entertainment and personal assistance. With platforms like PoeAI, you can create bots for free without needing extensive technical expertise. Bots can be used for a multitude of purposes. Businesses can build customer service bots, personal trainers can build bots to help people schedule workouts, educators can build bots to help students. In this creative challenge, students research bots linked at or created at PoeAI. Working collaboratively, they use Poe to develop a bot. They reflect on this experiment, questioning whether the possibility to create bots, even commercialize them, suggests that AI tools can provide humans with greater agency over their lives and creative projects.

Practice Critical AI Literacies

The MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI (2023) defines critical AI literacy as knowledge of “not just how AI models work but also about the risk, rewards, capacities, and complications of AI tools” (see point #8). Thus, this creative challenge introduces “18 Pitfalls in AI Journalism,” to help students identify logical fallacies, methodological errors, and interpretive errors in media “hype” about AI.

The Future of Writing: Postplagiarism & Hybrid Writing?

GAI (generative artificial intelligence) tools are a true conundrum for academics: On the one hand, most GAI tools are fueled by the greatest theft of intellectual property of all time. They challenge academic integrity discourse conventions and empower plagiarism. On the other hand, they expedite research and writing processes. In response to this dilemma, this creative challenge historicizes copyright laws and plagiarism conventions, introduces students to recent copyright controversies, and challenges students to analyze whether society needs to redefine IP (Intellectual Property) standards in response to the ubiquitousness of GAI tools and the move toward hybrid writing — i.e., writing coauthored by machines and humans. Building on the past creative challenges, this writing assignment maintains the course’s focus on the critical AI literacies students need to develop to use AI critically. According to The MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI (2023), we need to foreground these literacies in our classrooms so students don’t offshore thinking, research, writing, and design to GAI tools. Students using powerful AI writing tools — and especially students who aspire to be content creatives/knowledge workers — need to understand the key intellectual property debates surrounding composing in the age of AI.

Research How AI Constrains & Enhances Your Agency as a Human Being

In response to AI, human agency is a major concern. According to a Pew Research Center study — “The Future of Human Agency” Anderson & Rainie (2022) — the major question confronting humanity with the rise of AI is, “What is the future of human agency?” Trillions of dollars are pouring intro AI research and development. Thus, this challenge introduces the question of agency — of whether users of GAI (generative artificial intelligence) tools can be “masters of their technology and not its unthinking servants” (NEH). For this creative challenge, students experiment with AI tools to develop something novel — something they couldn’t imagine doing without AI, such as writing songs with Suno AI, creating videos with Adobe Express, or manipulating images with Adobe Firefly. After engaging in a qualitative, empirical research experiment to explore the possibilities of a new GAI tool, students reflect how these AI tools enhanced or constrained their creative and cognitive processes.

Research Deepfakes & Misinformation

Deepfakes refer to AI-generated synthetic media that manipulate or create convincing visual and audio content of real people. These technologies use deep learning algorithms to produce face swaps, voice cloning, full body puppetry, and text-to-speech synthesis, mirroring ancient sophistry’s appeals to emotion and tribal loyalties. In today’s knowledge economy, being able to identify deepfakes and other forms of misinformation is a critical AI competency, a basic literacy. Not surprisingly, the MLA CCCC Taskforce on Writing and AI has argued teaching critical AI literacy is crucial for our students and democracy. Thus, this challenges introduces students to research and scholarship on deepfakes, their impact on society, and the importance of understanding and combating misinformation. Students conduct textual research on how AI-generated deepfakes exploit cognitive biases, social dynamics, and information ecosystems. Students critically analyze misinformation, write an annotated bibliography, and create a deepfake or information campaign.

Imagine the Digital Future (Optional Project)

The rapid progression of generative artificial intelligence raises profound questions about the future of human creativity, authorship, and the role of writing in learning and knowledge production. Rainie and Anderson (2024) from Elon University’s Imagining the Digital Future Center surveyed and canvassed hundreds of global technology experts to investigate their thoughts on AI and the future of humanity. Their study findings revealed a mix of public trepidation and optimism about AI’s consequences: two-thirds of the experts expect negative impacts on personal privacy, over half foresee risks to employment opportunities and the integrity of politics and elections, and 40% fear AI could worsen societal civility. In response to these questions, this challenge asks students to tackle one of the core questions (along with climate change, war, hunger, and social injustice) facing humanity: Will the rise of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) limit human agency? A capstone project, students write an essay that theorizes about the future of human agency and writing in the age of AI.

Learning Objectives – Course Goals

1. Demonstrate the ability to find and use AI tools for specific purposes, genres, and media while maintaining authorial agency and voice.
2. Learn to use GAI tools critically to accomplish aims
3. Learn to employ critical frameworks to identify and debunk AI “ hype”
4. Learn strategies for preserving agency, human creativity, critical thinking, and decision-making while using AI to create, research, and learn
5. Understand the ethical issues associated with large language models
6. Demonstrate the ability to critically evaluate AI-generated texts and identify when human intervention and original thought are necessary
7. Demonstrate the ability to develop strategic AI prompts to locate and evaluate information, develop ideas, structure arguments, and refine drafts, all the while maintaining authorial control

Required Texts

1. All texts will be provided through Canvas/Perusall or will be freely available on the internet.
2. GCF Global. Google Drive and Docs
   This is a thorough, free guide to using gDocs. You’ll need this resource if you are unsure how to create and share gDocs.
3. Writing Commons
   You can block the ads by adding Adblock Plus, a free Chrome extension. The ad blocker works great.

Grading Contract

Your grades will be based on your labor over the semester. This approach is called “labor-based or contract grading.” Ideally, contract grading frees you up to try new things because you won’t be penalized for taking risks. In fact, I strongly (!!) encourage you to try new things and push yourself. Growth and strength result from struggle and working through confusion.

Contract Grading – UnGrading Resources

1. Contract Grading – So Your Instructor Is Using Contract Grading
2. Labor-Based Grading Resources by Asao Inoue
3. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom, 2nd Edition

Canvas Workaround

Assignments in Canvas will be marked as “Complete” or “Incomplete.” Nonetheless, Canvas will show you a percentage in your “Grades” view. However, because we are using a labor-based contract the Canvas grade percentage means nothing. Absolutely nothing. Ignore it. Any cumulative percentage that Canvas might show you is meaningless.

Grading Criteria

1. You earn a score of completion on an assignment by completing it as described in the assignment description. Your submissions should demonstrate you have read the readings associated with an assignment.
2. You earn an incomplete by failing to submit an assignment, by submitting an assignment that cannot be opened/read or, when required, commented on; by submitting an assignment that is not responsive to the assignment prompt; or by submitting work that is writer-based as opposed to reader-based — i.e., writing that is sloppy, writing that is so personalized, so idiosyncratic, that readers cannot successfully interpret it. Discourse may be called writer-based when it lacks an organizational structure other than a stream of consciousness, when it departs so significantly from standard written English that readers cannot decipher what the writer is saying. Furthermore, writing that does not in my opinion seem like prose from one human to another human will be marked as incomplete.

To earn an A in this course, you will need to

1. receive a complete on all eight creative challenges
2. complete all of the annotations/readings assigned in Perusall
3. attend all but three classes

To earn a B in this course, you need to

1. receive a complete on the first seven creative challenges
2. not be noticeably late to in-person class meetings more than twice.
   • Three late arrivals will constitute one missed assignment.
   • Five late arrivals will constitute a second missed assignment
   • Following five late arrivals, each lateness will result in a course grade deduction. So, for instance, a final grade of a B will become a C.

To earn a C in this course, you need to

1. Meet the expectations for a B, yet receive a complete on six of the first seven creative challenges

To earn a D in this course, you need to

2. Meet the expectations for a B, yet receive a complete on six of the first seven creative challenges.

In summary, your grades are based primarily on your labor as opposed to the quality of your work.

Grading FAQs

If you are grading based primarily on labor rather than quality and assigning “complete” or “incomplete” grades, what sort of critical feedback can I expect to receive?

Conventions

Depending on the rhetorical context, I’ll consider the conventions that govern academic or professional writing:

1. Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community
2. Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Audience Awareness

I will assess whether your work is responsive to the needs and interests of its target audience (e.g., readers, listeners, or users). As NCTE’s (National Council of Teachers of English) Position Statement on “Understanding and Teaching Writing: Guiding Principles” (Adler-Kassner et. al. 2018) notes, audience awareness is a critical concern of writers during composing (along with purpose and context):

When writers produce writing, they take into consideration purposes, audiences, and contexts. This leads them to make intentional choices about the elements that go into writing:

1. content (the subject or focus of the writing);
2. form (the shape of the writing, including its organization, structure, flow, and composition elements like words, symbols, images, etc.);
3. style and register (the choice of discourse (aka writing style] and syntax used for the writing, chosen from among the vast array of language systems [often called “dialects”] that are available for the writer); and mechanics (punctuation, citational style, etc.)” (“Understanding” 2022).

Style

I will assess whether the writer(s) has adopted an an appropriate writing style given the rhetorical situation. Are the writer’s appeals to ethos and pathos appropriate given the audience? Have they established a consistent voice, tone, and persona? To assess whether the text is writer-based or reader-based based, I will evaluate its clarity, brevity, coherence, flow, inclusivity, simplicity, and unity.

Content & Critical Thinking

I will evaluate whether the writer has provided the evidence and reasoning readers need to correctly interpret the work. Regarding evidence, is the content responsive to what the audience knows/feels about the topic? Has the writer created an authoritative text by providing a consistent credible voice, tone, and persona? Have they employed the information literacy conventions academic and professional readers expect? For instance, have they provided the sources and details readers need to assess the credibility of their claims? Additionally, I will assess whether the writer has maintained a consistent line of inquiry or analysis throughout the paper. Has the writer demonstrated a clear progression of ideas, where each new piece of information logically builds on the previous one. This approach ensures that the reasoning is clear and coherent, effectively addressing the thesis or research question and demonstrating thorough content and critical thinking.

Organization

An illogical progression or lack of cohesiveness will hinder clarity and undermine the effectiveness of the writing. A well-organized paper demonstrates an understanding of the rhetorical situation and audience’s needs, resulting in a clear and compelling piece. Hence, I will assess check the document for logical flow — whether the writer maintains a consistent line of inquiry or analysis throughout the paper. This involves ensuring that every section and paragraph supports the central focus—the thesis, hypothesis, or research question that drives the narrative or argument. In other words, I’ll consider whether the writer has structured their work with a clear and logical progression of supporting points, ensuring cohesiveness and unity throughout. This involves ensuring that every section and paragraph supports the central focus — the thesis, hypothesis, research question that drives the narrative.This also involves ensuring each new idea builds logically on the previous one, adhering to the given-to-new contract. I’ll also consider whether deductive and inductive reasoning are applied appropriately, depending on the nature of the argument or narrative. Headers should be used effectively to make the content scannable.

Design

I will assess whether the writer has effectively applied key design principles — proximity, alignment, repetition, and contrast — to enhance the clarity and impact of their work. I will question whether the text demonstrates an understanding of visual rhetoric and the power of visual language. This includes using images, graphs, and other visualizations to support and enhance the written content, making complex information more accessible and engaging. Headers, bullet points, and other formatting tools should be used effectively to make the document scannable and user-friendly.

University Policies

Please note that this course follows all USF Policies as described at the following urls:

1. https://www.usf.edu/provost/faculty-success/resources-policies-forms/core-syllabus-policy-statements.aspx
2. https://www.usf.edu/provost/faculty-success/documents/forms-policies-handbook/2021-08-13-hb233-guidance.pdf
3. https://usf.app.box.com/s/i2h4niaipp9kq53c2gx6vb2jqk482qfd

“It is fundamental to the University of South Florida’s mission to support an environment where divergent ideas, theories, and philosophies can be openly exchanged and critically evaluated. Consistent with these principles, this course may involve discussion of ideas that you find uncomfortable, disagreeable, or even offensive.In the instructional setting, ideas are intended to be presented in an objective manner and not as an endorsement of what you should personally believe. Objective means that the idea(s) presented can be tested by critical peer review and rigorous debate, and that the idea(s) is supported by credible research.

Not all ideas can be supported by objective methods or criteria. Regardless, you may decide that certain ideas are worthy of your personal belief. In this course, however, you may be asked to engage with complex ideas and to demonstrate an understanding of the ideas. Understanding an idea does not mean that you are required to believe it or agree with it.”

“If a student has concerns about discrimination, they can contact the appropriate office that has been designated in university processes: https://usf.app.box.com/s/1z01bzz19gzpw2o3j2zerukkcxaom1jo”

Acknowledgements¹

For helping me develop the course readings and assignments, I thank Ilene Frank (HCC) librarian and friend extraordinaire; Professors Whitney Gregg-Harrison (University of Rochester); Abram Anders (Iowa State University); and Anna Mills (Cañada College), and Troy Hicks (Central Michigan University). Thank you, colleagues, for being so inspirational and sharing your expertise. For help with the contract grading I’m using in this course, I thank Heather Shearer (Teaching Professor at UC Santa Cruz). Now that GAI tools are so widely available and given it’s impossible to police their use, “ungrading” is, in my opinion, the only sensible way forward.