How one petition was able to improve UNSW’s AI Art course

In June, UNSW announced a new course, DART2252: Generative AI for Artists, drawing significant student criticism. A petition opposing the course has gathered over 7,000 signatures to date, raising concerns about issues such as the environmental impact of generative AI and potential plagiarism of artists’ work. Despite the petition, as well as the mainstream media attention that it obtained, the course commenced on Monday at full enrolment.

While the petition did not achieve its ultimate goal of having the course stopped, it successfully drew attention to genuine issues with the framing of the course which were able to be rectified. The petition is an impressive illustration of what a grassroots student advocacy campaign can achieve at UNSW. 

Noise spoke with the course convener of DART2252, Oliver Bown, about how he has engaged with the criticism of the course and addressed the concerns that have been raised. 

Bown, after completing his PhD in 2008, moved to Australia where he started working in research around generative art and music, as well as creative technologies, leading him to a field known as ‘computational creativity’. This is a field of research focused on how technology and creative work intersect and the idea that technology can perform creative tasks. Naturally, this field leads to studying how machines can generate artwork, which generative AI forms a big part of. Consequently, Bown has “been looking at pro-AI [and] anti-AI thinking” following the “huge escalation of AI interest over the last five years.”

“I think a lot of anti-AI thinking is dead right.” 

- Oliver Bown

Bown described the ethical concerns raised by the petitioners, which are often debated about copyright, energy and productivity, to be “really valid, important critiques that all deserve to be studied.”

Bown was surprised by the petition against the course. “We clearly found ourselves sort of not aligned with student thinking,” referring to the way the course was presented. He emphasised that the school’s position was that, “we defend academic freedom and the right to teach a subject that is a subject of interest for creative people.” Nevertheless, while he defended the existence of the course, he acknowledged the value of student advocacy in this space. 

“We’ve celebrated student activist engagement in this subject because it's a really serious subject.”

- Oliver Bown

In response to the petition, Bown has engaged in conversations with the petition’s creator, Robin Chessell, as well as representatives from the SRC, discussions that would not have happened if not for Chessell taking a stand and being vocal about their beliefs. 

“We're grateful to student voices in highlighting this and seeing that it is something that matters across the whole university.”

- Oliver Bown

Student voices also successfully championed several changes to the course in order to alleviate the petition’s concerns. This included foregrounding the requirement of students taking the course to undertake ethical analysis of the generative AI tools that they are using. 

“We want students to do studies and to understand the behaviour and dynamics of generative AI systems to gain an understanding of how that relates to issues of copyright [and] issues of energy usage.”

- Oliver Bown

As part of assessable work, students will also be required to complete a societal and environmental impact assessment of the tools they are using. 

Students undertaking the course, while encouraged to do so, will also not necessarily need to use generative AI to fulfil the course requirements.

“If a student said ‘I refuse to use generative AI in this course’… I would be happy to respond to that student and discuss alternative tools.”

- Oliver Bown

Bown highlighted that other types of generative tools could be analysed instead. Regardless, he emphasised that as the course is an elective, “it's reasonable that anyone undertaking that course has chosen to use generative AI.” However, he added that if a student did not wish to engage with AI tools, he would “respect that position” and that he would discuss with the student the kinds of tools that they won't want to use.

Noise contacted Chessell, the creator of the petition, for comment on how Bown and the university responded to the petition. 

“[Bown] has responded as well as I could've possibly hoped for. We have spoken a lot and he agrees about the grave concerns for artists, the environment and the broader global population, but he believes the upsides of using the tool in an educational context outweigh the downsides. This is where we disagree.

As for the response from the university, I am disappointed. I do not feel that my concerns regarding environmental impact were adequately addressed, and I have not seen them respond to other concerns. I worry that they are pursuing this due to the growing commercial interest in generative AI at the expense of their students.

My goal remains to stop the course from going ahead in future. I still believe that generative AI in its current state is inappropriate to use, even in an educational setting, due to its ethical problems.”

- Robin Chessell

Noise did not reach out to UNSW specifically for comment on this article, however, a comment provided to the Guardian about DART2252 reiterated the university’s carbon-neutral position, stating “the course aligns with the university’s environmental sustainability plan.”

While the petition was not successful in having the course scrapped entirely, it should be commended for the attention it has drawn to the issues and the discussions it was able to facilitate, both specifically about the course as well as the wider ethical debates about AI. 

For students, this example highlights the importance of speaking up and voicing concerns about university decisions you may not agree with. For the university, this serves as a reminder to engage with students, genuinely listen to their perspectives, and actively take them into account.