Chuo University’s Fundamental Attitude toward Generative Artificial Intelligence
June 5, 2023
Chuo University’s Fundamental Attitude toward Generative Artificial Intelligence
President Hisashi Kawai
Research and development of Generative Artificial Intelligence (hereafter “generative AI”) are accelerating rapidly, and we are becoming able to harness various generative AI systems. While traditional systems, typified by databases, provide prepared information gained through high-speed data matching, generative AI systems “learn” from vast amounts of data online, typically on the Internet, and output “new (or apparently new) expression.”
These AI technologies hold great potential to transform the current social structure from the bottom up. Until now, mechanization and robotization of formulaic, repeatable, and continuous work has been taking place. However, we are now in the midst of a debate, how to take advantage of generative AI systems for non-routine work and new tasks in order to develop our society in a sustainable manner, in particular as we face a phase of steep population decline. We can also gain new insights through collaboration between human beings and generative AI, which may lead to a generation of new values in the near future.
As an institution of higher research and education, Chuo University considers it our social responsibility to engage in research and development of generative AI and its usage, including social implementation by paying attention to the following points.
First, as generative AI learns from data on the Internet, which is a part of the real world, we need to be aware that generative AI is vulnerable to the distortions of real society. For example, as long as we cannot exclude hate speech on the Internet, there is the risk of generative AI systems being affected and outputting such expressions. As a result, we should evaluate and treat those generated outputs or expressions from an ethical point of view.
Second, we should always be aware of how algorithms are used to integrate the “learned” information into output/expressed content, and make constant efforts toward its visualization. For instance, as long as antisocial discourses such as hate speech existing in real society cannot be excluded, we should tackle them algorithmically and keep generative AI systems free from those negative impacts. However, the aforementioned requires “someone” to “pre-stipulate” the essence of being “antisocial,” which may pose the risk of eliminating certain values by making them invisible, or of forcing specific values. Therefore, we should consider that the research and development of generative AI systems and their social implementation should be accompanied by researchers' and developers' duty to explain of what values are treated positively or negatively.
Third, while generative AI may contribute to making our lives and societies prosperous, and such prosperity should not be hindered, it is imperative to clarify that output/expression contents are the products of generative AI when using it. For example, if a generative AI user claims that the output/expressed content is their own work, it will not only raise legal issues but also be counter to the autonomy of an individual to decide life and society on one’s own. If the products of generative AI are distributed as “my or our own” decisions, individual liberty based on personal autonomy and its accompanying responsibilities, which are essential parts of our society, will face material risks.
Fourth, it is necessary to use generative AI systems with the recognition that they, at this point, are innovative and developing technology, and that they will never reach "completion" because they originate from information that exists on the Internet. This presents risks of including distortions of real society as mentioned above, misunderstandings of facts, and not taking small but material facts seriously. It is essential to continuously check the output/expression content of generative AI systems when using them.
Fifth, although systems developed on the Internet, including generative AI, are borderless, we must pay attention to large legal and cultural differences among countries and regions regarding research, development, and social implementation of generative AI. For instance, considering the relationships between generative AI and intellectual property rights or privacy rights, many countries have started to enforce their own regulations. There will be cases in which actions that are considered acceptable in Japan will be subject to strong criticism in other countries or regions. It is very important for each of us to have in-depth knowledge of the differences and diversity among cultures and legal systems.
The roles that generative AI plays in the sphere of research education at Chuo University and in Chuo’s contribution to society will surely expand dramatically. Those responsible are kindly asked to always bear in mind the above points and make good use of generative AI in each specialized field.
Please refer to the appendix, “Considerations when using Generative AI in the Chuo University Curriculum,” regarding the use of generative AI systems in Chuo curricula.
June 5, 2023
Announcement on “Considerations when using Generative AI in the Chuo University Curriculum”
As an institution of higher research and education, Chuo University (hereafter "Chuo") offers educational programs for Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral, and Professional degrees, with more than 30,000 students studying there.
Chuo has long strived for educational and learning environments that encourage all students to develop their abilities to the levels stipulated in Chuo's diploma policies. Still, the generative AI systems, which are growing rapidly, raise a profound question of whether their use in education and learning can enhance students' proficiency. In addition, the ethical and social concerns that generative AI systems raise still need to be considered.
Recognizing that "generative AI systems hold great potential to transform the current social structure from the bottom up," Chuo, as an institution of higher research and education, considers it our social responsibility to engage in research and development of generative AI and its usage, including social implementation by paying attention to several key points. Therefore, Chuo hereby announces that we have stipulated the considerations for using generative AI systems in the Chuo curriculum.
Considerations when using Generative AI in the Chuo University Curriculum
June 5, 2023
A Ruling of the President
（Scope of the Rule）
1. This “Considerations when using Generative AI in the Chuo University Curriculum” (hereinafter “the Rule”) shall apply to all faculty members (including adjunct faculty members in the Rule who teach at Chuo University (hereafter “Chuo”) and to all students who study at Chuo.
(Application of the Rule)
2. The Rule stipulates principles when using generative AI systems in all Chuo curricula. Provided, however, that education institutes (hereafter “the Faculty”), such as the undergraduate faculties, the graduate schools, and the Organization of Common Education Initiatives in charge of managing curricula, can stipulate exceptions regarding the usage of generative AI systems, if needed. In addition, the Faculty can authorize faculty members in charge of the courses that constitute the curricula of the Faculty to set other rules apart from the Rule or rules stipulated by the Faculty.
(Definition of generative AI systems)
3. In the Rule, a generative AI system means a system, among computer systems (including those provided as a service on the Internet), that learns from data and also has functions to generate and output new expressions based on learned results.
(Use of generative AI systems by faculty members)
4. Faculty members shall not be hindered from using generative AI systems as tools or from using the generated output of generative AI systems as educational resources in the courses they teach.
5. Faculty members who use generative AI systems in line with the preceding clause must notify students enrolled in those courses of such usage.
(Use of generative AI systems by students)
6. Students shall not be hindered from using generative AI systems as study tools in courses. However, considering that generative AI systems store and learn information input by users, students shall not input any of the following information:
a. information that is generally considered confidential, such as confidential matters regarding research;
b. information that may harm an individual’s personal interests, such as personal information or information related to privacy;
c. false information intended to harm others’ personal interests, such as an individual’s honor.
7. Notwithstanding the preceding clause, although students may use output data generated by AI systems for reference when writing or submitting study deliverables (hereafter “Report”), however, they may not submit output data as it is generated by AI systems as one’s Report.
8. Students must clearly specify in-text, or attach the following information (a – d below), when referring to output data from generative AI systems in writing or submitting one’s Report. However, regarding c. and d., students only need to be prepared to submit additional information when faculty members in charge of assignments have given prior instruction.
a. The name and version of generative AI systems used
b. The date(s) generative AI systems were used
c. The prompts and other information that has been input to generative AI systems, and environment settings
d. The output data of generative AI systems
(Restriction of student’s use of generative AI systems by faculty members)
9. Notwithstanding clauses 6 through 8, faculty members can prohibit or restrict the use of generative AI systems on certain parts of the course of study, provided that the restriction or the prohibition is recognized as necessary from the perspective of course education. However, upon taking such measures, the faculty members in charge must clearly indicate the contents of the prohibition or restriction and the educational reasons to the students taking the course.
10. If a student submits a Report in violation of clauses 7 or 8, the faculty members in charge of the course, for the purpose of grade evaluation, shall treat the Report as if it had not been submitted.
11. Notwithstanding the preceding clause, the faculty members in charge of the course can evaluate such a student’s assessment as F (Impossible to evaluate), even if, according to other grading factors, credit shall be granted with a grade of "S," "A," "B," or "C." However, in order to take this measure, students taking the subject must be informed of that effect in advance.
12. Amendments to the Rule shall be made by the President after the discussion of the President and Deans’ Meeting.