Generative Artificial Intelligence Policies and Resources

On This Page

Introduction

Note: this resource was adapted with permission from “Advice on Generative AI” by Professor David Liu (Department of Computer Science) and further developed by the A&S Teaching and Learning Team. Please check back regularly for updates, or reach out to us directly at teachinglearning.artsci@utoronto.ca.

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) can mimic human composition, “using predictive technology to create or revise written products of all kinds, including essays, computer code, lesson plans, poems, reports, and letters” (U of T OVPIUE).

Generative AI tools present various challenges for educators, especially when it comes to academic integrity and designing activities and assignments that address the changing environment. Unlike paper mills and contract cheating services, generative AI tools can produce answers and draft material quickly, often — though not always — at low- or no-cost, meaning there are few barriers to use. AI tools like ChatGPT are becoming more widely available and integrated into search engines and word processors.

This resource provides guidelines and pedagogical considerations for Arts & Science instructors on the technologies known as generative artificial intelligence (AI) that have gained prominence over the last year, including but not limited to ChatGPT Links to an external site.. We have the following goals for this advice page:

  1. Highlight University of Toronto policies that guide your teaching, such as academic integrity.
  2. Outline principles and guiding questions to consider with regards to generative AI and teaching.
  3. Describe ways to prohibit, allow, or invite generative AI in your courses, assignments, and activities, and provide sample syllabus and assessment statements.
  4. Suggest some strategies for students and instructors on for how they might use generative AI.
  5. Provide references and additional resources, if you want to learn more.

This page is not an introduction to generative AI or large language models. It assumes some familiarity with these technologies and specific tools like ChatGPT. For more background reading, see References and Additional Resources.

Back to top

Policies and Guidelines

Institutional Policies

Generative AI Tools at U of T

An enterprise version of Microsoft Copilot is now available to all instructors, librarians, staff, and students at the University of Toronto. When signed in using your UTORid (a green “protected” badge will show), the enterprise edition conforms to the University’s privacy and data protections. Copilot is free to use, and provides ChatGPT access, document analysis, and Dall-E image generation. Microsoft Edge browser is recommended to access extended functionality. 

Contact North/Contact Nord has developed two generative AI tools that conform to the University's privacy and security standards: 

  • AI Teacher's Assistant Pro, an instructor-facing tool to support instructional design. Review CTSI's guide for more information, including pedagogical considerations. 
  • AI Tutor Pro, a student-facing tool designed to be a studying aid for students. Review CTSI's guide for more information, including how students can get started. 

Additional resources from the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation that may be helpful: Generative AI Tools; Generative AI in the Classroom; and Microsoft Copilot. 

When using other Generative AI tools not currently supported by the University of Toronto, you should verify which tools are freely available in Canada (as this may change over time). At the time of writing this guide:

Institutional Policies

The Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education has put together a helpful FAQ: ChatGPT and Generative AI in the Classroom, with guidance about academic integrity, using AI detector tools, and integrating AI into the classroom.

Some key sections from the OVPIUE's FAQ that may be helpful for A&S instructors:

Academic Integrity: As of March 2, 2023: “If an instructor specified that no outside assistance was permitted on an assignment, the University would typically consider use of ChatGPT and other such tools to be use of an 'unauthorized aid' under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, or as 'any other form of cheating.' Such categorization is in keeping with how the University has classified use of other generative and authorized technology tools, such as Chegg, in the past.”

Using AI-detectors on student work: As of June 7, 2023: “The University discourages the use of AI-detection software programs on student work. Such software programs have been found to be unreliable and to incorrectly flag instances of AI use in human-written content ... Sharing your students’ work with these software programs without their permission also raises a range of privacy and ethical concerns. However, instructors are encouraged to continue to use their traditional methods for detection of potential academic misconduct, including meeting with a student to discuss their assignment in person."

Using AI for pedagogical purposes: As of April 10, 2024: “Some instructors may wish to use the technology to demonstrate how it can be used productively, or what its limitation are. The U of T Teaching Centres are continuing to develop more information and advice about how you might use generative AI as part of your learning experience design.”

Academic Integrity

If you have explicitly banned or restricted the use of generative AI, then students who use generative AI to complete assessments have committed an academic offense, use of an unauthorized aid, which is the same category as obtaining an assignment solution from Chegg, private tutor, or paper mill.

However, detecting work generated by AI poses significant challenges. The University does not support the use of automated tools like GPTZero for this type of detection, as false positives—that is, student work that is incorrectly flagged as containing AI-generated content—can lead to significant negative consequences for students.

Generative AI often produce "hallucinations" meaning that if students use these tools, their assessments may contain incorrect facts or citations. This may fall under the academic offence of concoction, meaning the inclusion of false data, fact, or references in an assignment.

*New* (18 February 2025): the A&S Student Academic Integrity team has created a one-page guide for instructors: Academic Integrity and Generative AI Download Academic Integrity and Generative AI. Please reach out to sai.artsci@utoronto.ca with any questions. 

Pedagogical Considerations

Correctness. AI-generated text and code are not guaranteed to be correct. We recommend discussing this limitation explicitly with your students, perhaps by generating some examples of “confident but wrong” responses in the context of a specific assignment or course topic.

Unpredictability. Generative AI tools may experience throttling, slowdowns, or outages. The underlying machine learning models may change over time in ways that are opaque to users. We recommend setting explicit expectations that “ChatGPT going down” is not sufficient reason for requesting an extension on an assignment.

Privacy. Encourage students to review the privacy policies of any generative AI tool they plan to use. They should understand how their interactions will be stored and used in the future. Discourage students from entering any personal information into a generative AI tool.

Acknowledgment. Do you want to require that students acknowledge the use of generative AI? If so, provide guidance to students on how they should do so.

Academic integrity. Even when generative AI tools are permitted, there are still two threats to academic integrity to warn students against:

  • Providing false citations is an academic offence. Generative AI tools have been known to generate false citations.
  • Not acknowledging the use of generative AI may be considered an academic offence if the instructor requires that students do so. 
Ethical Considerations

You or your students may have ethical/social concerns regarding generative AI more broadly. If you are not requiring students to use generative AI in your course, you likely will be able to address students concerns separately from their ability to complete an assignment successfully. 

Under References and Additional Resources we have provided some resources and articles that offer a variety of perspectives on ethical and social issues related to generative AI. You may wish to use these as a starting point for learning more about these issues, or to share them with your students if any concerns or questions arise.

Back to top

Principles and Guiding Questions

Course learning outcomes are your anchor

What do you want your students to know, to be able to do, and to value by the end of your course? Your answers to this question form your course learning outcomes, which then inform the decisions you make about your course. These learning outcomes are likely influenced by many factors, including: the historical and current state of your field; the requirements of follow-on courses; and potential student career paths post-graduation.

In the context of generative AI, our first guiding question is: Does the presence of generative AI cause you to rethink your course learning outcomes—that is, to rethink what you want students to know, to be able to do, and to value by the end of your course? If yes, you may be interested in a longer-term course redesign, but in the meantime, your course must adhere to the current calendar description. If no, then your focus will likely be on your assessments and communication with students, which are discussed below.

For more on course learning outcomes, see Developing Learning Outcomes from the University of Toronto’s Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation.

Assessments should align with learning outcomes

That is, evaluating student work on these assessments should indicate how well students have achieved those outcomes. The validity of assessments is threatened by various forms of academic misconduct, which result in student work that does not accurately represent student learning. While academic misconduct has always been possible, generative AI will likely result in a lower barrier to doing so, at least in cases where tools produce "sufficiently good" solutions. This type of misconduct may also be more difficult to detect than other common forms like copying another student’s work.

Our next guiding questions are:

  • In what ways (if any) does generative AI threaten the validity of your assessments?
  • What changes to course policies and/or the assessments themselves can mitigate these threats?

Further down, we describe three different approaches you might take to the second question: restricting, allowing, or requiring the use of generative AI on course assessments.

Communicate your policies and rationale to your students

Once you have decided on your course policies regarding generative AI, you should state them explicitly. Your students will have varying levels of knowledge of generative AI, and many will look to you for guidance on how these tools will impact their learning and what they are and are not allowed to do. When setting course policies—especially restrictive ones—it is useful to communicate to students why you’ve put such a policy into place.

Our recommended best practice is to include a blanket policy on your course syllabus and a reminder on each assignment handout. Your assignment handout text can optionally include specific details for different parts of the assignment. We’ve included sample statements for each approach (restrict, allow, require) to generative AI. These statements include language describing a course policy as well as rationale and guidance for students. You are free to use and adapt these samples.

Prepare to adapt to evolving AI

Generative AI is evolving rapidly. Improvements in AI models and the products built on top of them are released in a cadence that outpaces the typical teaching cycle. What is true at the start of a semester about a tool’s capabilities, limitations, and pricing may be out of date after a few weeks into your course. While it is unrealistic for you to stay on top of every novel development while teaching, we recommend that you review your course learning outcomes, policies, and assessments regularly as generative AI continues to advance. We also caution you against investing significant effort into major course or assessment redesign that is tailored to current generative AI capabilities, as you might find much of this work outdated after even a single course offering.

Back to top

Assessments & Activities

Prohibiting the Use of Generative AI

You may want to ban students from using generative AI tools on course assessments for a variety of pedagogical reasons. You may be concerned that use of these tools will inhibit genuine learning or create dependent learners who struggle without these tools. For example, instructors of an introductory programming course may want students to develop fluency in a programming language without the aid of generative AI. You may worry about academic integrity and the validity of your grades when a large portion of them come from unsupervised work.

Sample Syllabus and Assessment Statements: Prohibited or Limited Use of Generative AI

If you choose to ban or restrict the use of generative AI on course assessments, you should include explicit language that describes what is and isn’t allowed. We have provided sample syllabus and assessment statements below.

Sample Syllabus Statement (prohibited use)

The use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is strictly prohibited in all course assessments unless explicitly stated otherwise by the instructor. This includes, but is not limited to, ChatGPT, GitHub Microsoft Copilot, AI Tutor and Teacher's Assistant Pro, and open-source models that you have trained and/or deployed yourself. You may not interact with, nor copy, paraphrase, or adapt any content from any generative AI for the purpose of completing assignments in this course. Use of generative AI will be considered use of an unauthorized aid, which is a form of academic misconduct under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.

This course policy is designed to promote your learning and intellectual development and to ensure that our evaluations are a fair and accurate assessment of your learning. Though it may be tempting to use generative AI to assist you when completing your assignments, this will simply inhibit your learning. If the work you submit is essentially the output of generative AI, then what have you learned and what value are you adding? Think of it this way: if a potential employer or supervisor can get as much from an AI tool as what you’re able to do yourself, then why should they hire you at all? You should aim to understand course content at a level that far exceeds what an automated tool can achieve. Our course—and in particular, each assignment—is designed to help you attain true mastery of the course content. If you have questions or are stuck, please come to office hours, where we’ll be happy to help!

Sample Assessment Statement #1 (prohibited use)

As stated on the course syllabus, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is strictly prohibited on this assignment. Use of generative AI will be considered use of an unauthorized aid, which is a form of academic misconduct. You may not interact with, nor copy, paraphrase, or adapt any content from any generative AI for the purpose of completing this assignment.

Sample Assessment Statement #2 (limited use)
The work you submit for this assignment must be your own, and may not include any content from generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, either verbatim or with edits. You may, however, use generative AI to support your work on this assignment in the following ways: [examples shown below; modify as necessary]
  • To answer general questions about high-level concepts covered in this course or assignment
  • To provide examples of the usage of the library's API 
  • To summarize information
  • To generate test cases for your code
  • To assist with understanding and debugging errors. 

Please note that any uses of generative AI beyond the ones listed above are not permitted, and will be considered use of an unauthorized aid, which is an academic offense. 

Allowing the Use of Generative AI

You may want to allow, or even encourage, students to use generate AI to complete assessments. You may see benefits to student learning or workflow, such as using generative AI to explore an unfamiliar software library. You may believe that generative AI will play a role in students’ future work, and so it is valuable for students to learn to use generative AI. You may be concerned about the difficulty of enforcing a ban on generative AI and prefer a more permissive approach.

Sample Syllabus and Assessment Statements: Allowing the Use of Generative AI

Even if you intend on a permissive policy where students are permitted to use generative AI, you should include explicit messaging about this on your course syllabus. This will reduce the questions you receive during the semester and give you the opportunity to set expectations and advise your students on how best to use these tools. We have provided sample syllabus and assessment statements below. In the following section, we describe some pedagogical considerations on using generative AI that you should take into account when adapting these statements for your own courses.

Sample Syllabus Statement (allowing use)

In this course, you may use generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools, including ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and GitHub Copilot, as learning aids and to help complete assignments. You will not be permitted to use generative AI on the midterm test or final exam. While some generative AI tools are currently available for free in Canada, please be warned that these tools have not been vetted by the University of Toronto and might not meet University guidelines or requirements for privacy, intellectual property, security, accessibility, and records retention. Generative AI may produce content which is incorrect or misleading, or inconsistent with the expectations of this course. These tools may even provide citations to sources that don’t exist—and submitting work with false citations is an academic offense. These tools may be subject to service interruptions, software modifications, and pricing changes during the semester.

Generative AI is not required to complete any aspect of this course, and we caution you to not rely entirely on these tools to complete your coursework. Instead, we recommend treating generative AI as a supplementary tool only for exploration or drafting content. Ultimately, you (and not any AI tool) are responsible for your own learning in this course, and for all the work you submit for credit. It is your responsibility to critically evaluate the content generated, and to regularly assess your own learning independent of generative AI tools. Overreliance on generative AI may give you a false sense of how much you’ve actually learned, which can lead to poor performance on the midterm test or final exam, in later courses, or in future work or studies after graduation.

Sample Assessment Statement (allowing use)

This assignment is designed to be completed without the use of generative AI, using only concepts and skills we have covered in lecture and in the course readings. However, as stated in the course syllabus, you may use generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, and GitHub Copilot to complete this assignment. We encourage you to review the section on generative AI tools in the course syllabus before considering using them on this assignment. In particular, remember that you (and not any AI tool) are responsible for your own learning in this course, and for the final work you submit for this assignment.

If you choose to use any generative AI tools while working on this assignment, you must acknowledge which generative AI tools you used and how you used them. It is an academic offence to not credit sources—including generative AI—in work that you submit. This acknowledgment should take the form of: [examples shown below; modify as desired]

  • In-text and bibliographic entries for any generative AI tool used following [citation style of choice, eg. Chicago, MLA, APA] citation style. 
  • Comments in your code acknowledging which functions, classes, or blocks of code were created entirely or in part by generative AI.
  • An appendix at the end of your solutions PDF with a description of how generative AI was used and how the results from the AI were incorporated into the submitted work.

An appendix at the end of your report with links to the raw ChatGPT transcripts that record your interactions with the tool while working on this assignment.

Inviting the Use of Generative AI

You may want to explicitly incorporate a generative AI tool into an assessment. You may want to demonstrate uses and/or limitations of generative AI and connect it to other content and skills in the course. You may have an idea for how generative AI could be used to enhance student learning.

Warning: it can be easy to fall under the lure of “we’ll make something fun for the students,” but in doing so shift focus away from course content. When debating the use of any tool in your classroom, consider whether they will enhance student learning or distract students from your course learning outcomes.

Warning: Some generative AI tools, like ChatGPT and GitHub Copilot, are considered third-party tools by the University. All instructors must abide by the following guidelines, as outlined by the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation:

  • “Environments external to U of T that are to be used by students as part of course activities must be explicitly listed in the course syllabus.”
  • “If a student does not consent to participation in an external environment, a viable alternative assignment or activity must be available to them.”

In particular, you should be prepared to offer an “alternative assignment or activity” that does not require an external generative AI tool to complete. We strongly encourage you to consult with an A&S Faculty Liaison, Pedagogical Support to discuss your assignment plans before the start of the semester. Reach out to us at teachinglearning.artsci@utoronto.ca or through the consultation form Links to an external site.. 

Warning: if you are thinking about requiring students to use a paid service (e.g., ChatGPT Plus), please contact your Associate Chair, Undergraduate for a consultation. The University has strict policies governing courses that require additional payments from students.

Sample Syllabus and Assessment Statements: Invited Use of Generative AI

These sample statements are similar to the ones given above, but make explicit the part(s) of the course that require the use of generative AI and give students an opportunity to “opt out” for an alternative assessment.

Sample Syllabus Statement (invited use)

In this course, you will use ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool, to complete Assignment 1. ChatGPT is freely available after creating an account on OpenAI’s website. The purpose of this assignment is to explore the capabilities and limitations of a generative AI tool in the context of our course. More details will be provided on the assignment handout. If you have concerns about creating an account with OpenAI, please contact your instructor as soon as possible so that we can determine an appropriate alternative.

You will be allowed, but not required, to use ChatGPT or other generative AI tools as learning aids and to help complete the other course assignments. You will not be permitted to use generative AI on the midterm test or final exam. As we will explore on Assignment 1, generative AI may produce content which is incorrect or misleading, or inconsistent with the expectations of this course. They may even provide citations to sources that don’t exist—and submitting work with false citations is an academic offense. These tools may be subject to service interruptions, software modifications, and pricing changes during the semester.

Generative AI is not required to complete any aspect of this course other than Assignment 1, and we caution you to not rely entirely on these tools to complete your coursework. Instead, we recommend treating generative AI as a supplementary tool only for exploration or drafting content. Ultimately, you (and not any AI tool) are responsible for your own learning in this course, and for all the work you submit for credit. It is your responsibility to critically evaluate the content generated, and to regularly assess your own learning independent of generative AI tools. Overreliance on generative AI may give you a false sense of how much you’ve actually learned, which can lead to poor performance on the midterm test or final exam, in later courses, or in future work or studies after graduation.

Sample Assessment Statement (invited use)

This assignment requires the use of ChatGPT, a generative AI tool by OpenAI. This tool is freely available after creating an account on OpenAI’s website. If you have concerns about creating an account with OpenAI, please contact your instructor as soon as possible so that we can determine an appropriate alternative.

 

Back to top

Strategies for Students and Instructors

Generative AI may be useful in supporting student learning and your own teaching practice in ways that avoid direct usage on assessments. We’ve divided up the ideas into two sections: strategies that you might share with your students, and strategies that you might use yourself.

Strategies for students

  • Creating supplementary learning materials. Students may use generative AI to create summaries or alternate explanations/examples of course concepts, additional practice problems, and/or essay outlines. 
  • Supporting self-study. Students may use generative AI to explore topics and/or tools that are related to but go beyond the scope of the course. 
  • Providing formative feedback. Students may use generative AI to provide feedback on their work (e.g., improving code quality; improving phrasing or word choice), or to help check correctness (e.g., fixing grammar, debugging or interpreting error messages). 

All these strategies should be prefixed with a warning to students (adapted from sample syllabus statements): Generative AI may produce content which is incorrect or misleading, or inconsistent with the expectations of this course. It is your responsibility to critically evaluate the content generated, and to regularly assess your own learning independent of generative AI tools. 

Strategies for instructors

Note: The same caveats we would give to students about generative AI apply to instructors as well! If you are considering using generative AI to produce any kind of course material, you must review it carefully for correctness, consistency with other course content, and appropriateness for your students. Ultimately, as instructor you are responsible for all content associated with your course.

  • Creating draft test questions. Alternately, creating a large volume of “review questions” that you might curate and distribute as a study aid.
  • Creating draft responses on your online Q&A forum. While this may work well for general questions about course content, keep in mind that many questions are highly context-dependent (e.g., about the requirements of an assignment or course logistics) that a general AI tool will struggle to answer.
  • Summarizing class-wide assessment feedback. For intellectual property reasons, the University does not permit instructors or TAs to upload student work to generative AI tools for any purpose, including feedback or assessment. However, you may consider using generative AI to summarize or synthesize large quantities of TA feedback into a single, class-wide document. This could be helpful in describing common errors or points of improvement. Use caution and review any generated feedback carefully: factual errors in feedback risk misleading students and causing real harm to their learning.

Redesigning Your Course

If generative AI is causing you to rethink your course learning outcomes, you may want to embark on a full or partial course redesign. Major changes to a course can involve a significant amount of work, must be reflected in the course description in the Academic Calendar, and can affect follow-up courses and the overall curriculum in our department

Back to top

References and Additional Resources

Use the drop-down menus below to explore further resources. 

University of Toronto Guidance on Generative AI

Using ChatGPT or other generative AI tool on a marked assessment. (2023). University of Toronto, Academic Integrity.

ChatGPT and Generative AI in the Classroom. (2023). University of Toronto, Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education.

Generative Artificial Intelligence in the Classroom. (2023). University of Toronto, Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation.

U of T Syllabus Language – Use of Generative AI in Assignments. (2024). University of Toronto, Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovation in Undergraduate Education.

Workshops and Presentations

Boyes, D., Gustafson, A., Ju, W., Sanders, N., Steipe, B., Suarez, D., Sullivan, & L. Zweig, D. (2023, March 2). University of Toronto, Department of Linguistics Pedagogy Workshop: AI-Generated Text and Teaching in Linguistics Links to an external site. [Video]. YouTube. (1:28:40).

Gibbs, A., Williams, A., & McCahan, S. (2023, February 28). Designing Assessments in the Age of Artificial Intelligence [Video]. University of Toronto, Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation.  (1:54:09). Presentation slides located on SharePoint Links to an external site.. Video requires access through Teams; please contact ctsi.teaching@utoronto.ca for access.

Lametti, D. (2023, January 31). AI and Academia: The End of the Essay? Links to an external site. [Video]. Maple League of Universities. Youtube. (1:02:29). Slides can be accessed on Dropbox Links to an external site..

McCahan, S. (2023, February 18). Generative Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning [Video]. University of Toronto. MyMedia. (18:12). UTORid login required.

Suarez, D. & Gustafson, A. (2022, November 1). Teaching Writing in the Age of Mechanical Content Production [Video]. Arts & Science Teaching & Learning Community of Practice, University of Toronto. MyMedia. (37:25). UTORid login required.

Course and Assignment Design

Developing or Redesigning a Course. (2023). University of Toronto, Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation.

Developing Learning Outcomes. (2023). University of Toronto, Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation.

Dobrin, S. (2023). AI and Writing Links to an external site.. Broadview Press. 

Dobrin, S. (2023). Talking about Generative AI: A Guide for Educators Links to an external site.. Broadview Press.

Learning & Education Advancement Fund. (n.d.). University of Toronto, Office of the Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education. Retrieved August 8, 2023. 

Mollick, E & Mollick, L. (2023, June 12). Assigning AI: Seven Ways of Using AI in Class, with Prompts Links to an external site.. SSRN.

Ethical and Social Concerns About Generative AI

Note: mention of an issue or link to an article or paper does not indicate endorsement of a particular viewpoint.

Intellectual property, privacy.

Open AI. (2023, April 5). Our approach to AI safety Links to an external site..

Ray, S. (2023, May 19). Apple Joins A Growing List Of Companies Cracking Down On Use Of ChatGPT By Staffers—Here’s Why Links to an external site.. Forbes.

Thorbecke, C. (2023, June 28). OpenAI, maker of ChatGPT, hit with proposed class action lawsuit alleging it stole people’s data Links to an external site.. CNN.

Bias

Bender, E., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021, March 1). On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Links to an external site. FAccT '21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610-623.

Durmus, E., Nyugen, K., Liao, T., Schiefer, N., Askell, A., Bakhtin, A., Chen, C., Hatfield-Dodds, Z., Hernandez, D., Joseph, N., Lovitt, L., McCandlish, S., Sikder, O., Tamkin, A., Thamkul, J., Kaplan, J., Clark, J., & Ganguli, D. (2023). Towards Measuring the Representation of Subjective Global Opinions in Language Models Links to an external site.. Anthropic.

Rozado, D. (2023, January 20). The Political Bias of ChatGPT – Extended Analysis Links to an external site.. Substack: Rozado's Visual Analytics.

Misinformation

Benson, T. (2023, June 18). Humans Aren’t Mentally Ready for an AI-Saturated ‘Post-Truth World’ Links to an external site.. Wired.

Campbell, R. & Boutboul, S. (2023, April 18). Navigating the Warped Realities of Generative AI Links to an external site.. Blackbird AI.

Human labour involved in model training.

Dziea, J. (2023, June 20). AI Is a Lot of Work Links to an external site.. The Verge.

Perrigo, B. (2023, January 18). Exclusive: OpenAI Used Kenyan Workers on Less Than $2 Per Hour to Make ChatGPT Less Toxic Links to an external site.. Time.

Environmental impact.

Luccioni, S. (2023, April 12). The mounting human and environmental costs of generative AI. Links to an external site. Ars Technica.

AI extinction risk.

Center for AI Safety. (n.d.). Statement on AI Risk Links to an external site.. Retrieved Aug 8, 2023.

Goldman, S. (2023, May 31). AI experts challenge ‘doomer’ narrative, including ‘extinction risk’ claims Links to an external site.. VentureBeat.

Who can I contact for support?

Please reach out to the A&S Teaching & Learning team at teachinglearning.artsci@utoronto.ca or book a one-on-one consultation using the Booking Form Links to an external site..

Back to top

Can't find what you're looking for? Consult the Index for a full list of pages or contact the T&L team. Page last updated: February 18, 2025.