On September 16, the @followstevens Instagram account posted an image depicting the UCC Center and Residential Towers bedazzled in red, yellow, and white gems. The caption read, “A new University Center Complex-ion ✨✨ #whimsymaxxing.” At the time of writing this article, the post has 73 comments, in which the majority expressed criticism and outright disdain towards it.
What would cause such an intense backlash?
The post used AI-generated content.
A comment from an Instagram user reads, “Stevens has access to a whole network of talented artists consisting of both alumni and current students. Choosing to fake it with AI is disappointing and shameful.”
Another comment from a user says, “A school charging $32,000 a semester couldn’t pay a VA&T (Visual Arts and Technology) student (who could very much use the experience and resume piece btw) for something THIS simple? How lazy and cheap can you get??”
A broader consensus seems to ring the same response: People are tired of “AI slop.”
“AI slop” is generally agreed to be content that’s produced as quickly and as much as possible via AI generation. Instead of asking someone to create something, just about anyone can ask a chatbot to generate them something that would take less than five minutes. And that seems to be the case with this post, as the trend “whimsymaxxing” started with Kylie Jenner’s bedazzled birthday cake and snowballed into social media users following suit.
The debate of AI-generated content has only grown more intense over the years, with many expressing ethical concerns regarding its usage and rapid development. The most prominent issue being the environmental impacts, including millions of gallons of drinking water used to cool down data centers, and the fear that more jobs may become obsolete due to AI’s potential to both replace and exceed human labor.
This worldwide debate can even be seen on our very own campus, in which Stevens has pushed for broader use and development of AI through the new AI-focused majors at the new School of Computing. From this, student and faculty opinion on the use of AI seems to be quite mixed.
The Stute reached out to Tiffany Li, an Assistant Professor of the Department of Computer Science with research in human-computer interaction and responsible AI use, for her opinion on the backlash. Li commented, “The backlash shows people’s concerns over thoughtless, wasteful production of AI-generated images that are low-quality, lack creativity, and, even worse, a lousy appropriation of people’s own ideas. More broadly, people are concerned about institutions and organizations adopting AI without considering its broader impacts on their people…”
Katheryn Detwiler, a Teaching Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Studies in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, offered to share results of lecture discussions from her class, Computers and Society, as well as a survey on students’ opinions on AI content produced by the university by students themselves.
The majority of Detwiler’s students agreed that the post was a “missed opportunity for student engagement with creating Stevens’ brand and social media presence,” with some adding that the image seemed “cheap and low effort.” However, some had argued that the backlash against the image is hypocritical and unjust.
They argued that Stevens students have used generative AI without disclosure to complete their assignments. In a student survey conducted by Detwiler’s class, based on about 1,600 responses, there are several contradictions. Only 6% believe that it’s ethical to submit AI responses in their assignments, but 21% reported that they have done so. On a different question, 31% of students believe their peers use AI ethically, while 41% disagree.
It becomes even more complicated when transparency and disclosure are brought into the picture. 29% of students believe their peers value transparency when AI is used, while 34% disagree. And the most bizarre statistic comes from 74% of students observing academic misuse of AI. More survey results show that 37% of students feel somewhat or strongly disadvantaged in their academic work when they don’t use AI, while 40% feel discouraged when they see peers use AI to finish their work.
Student polls address the dissonance between ethical concerns and academic pressure to produce work. “Even if they worry about its ethical implications, its ecological implications, even if they think it violates their sense of personal or academic integrity, they feel pressure to use it,” says Detwiler.
