Generative AI Tools Statement
Generative AI tools refer to computer systems that can produce (or generate) various forms of traditionally human expression through digital content, including language, images, video, and music (MLA-CCCC Task Force). The FSU Reading-Writing Center and Digital Studio recognize that generative AI tools—including large language models such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Google Gemini, and DALL-E—are increasingly being used in educational settings. In the RWC-DS, our priority is to work with students on their short- and long-term learning goals through individualized sessions. We recognize that generative AI tools, like all new composing technologies, may impact students’ path to confidence in their writing abilities.
At the RWC-DS, we believe that writing, at its core, is the process by which authors make choices which will help them communicate with specific audiences given their particular situation and goal(s). In other words, we believe that effective writers can recognize and respond to specific social situations. Our consultants aim to help students recognize and envision their writing community through acting as engaged peer writers. Increasingly, this includes supporting writers who are wrestling with the role of Generative AI in their professional and academic communities.
We recognize that faculty and students across the university have found value in using GenAI chatbots in various phases of the writing process, from brainstorming or drafting to proofreading or translating. However, we also recognize that authors are able to bring lived experiences and contextual knowledge to the writing process that chatbots cannot understand or fully engage with. Peer writing consultants can engage more fully with a writer’s experiences and provide more robust feedback than a software tool alone can achieve. Students are in control of the role that GenAI plays in their writing center session. When meeting with students who choose to use AI, we are committed to promoting critical, informed, and responsible GenAI practices which preserve the social nature of writing and keep students actively engaged in the composing process.
Consultants’ Responsibilities
Writing center consultants will honor the professor’s assignment sheet and/or syllabus guidelines when working with students. If a professor prohibits AI tools, consultants will not use those tools during a session. If a professor allows AI tools, consultants will ask to see the assignment to ensure the session follows any guidelines.
If an assignment allows for AI tools, consultants may use them in a session in ways they consider are appropriate and if the student requests it. We will also remind writers about the limitations of AI tools (see Limitations below). However, not all consultants are comfortable using AI tools and may conduct a session without them or refer the student to another staff member.
Because consultants see student writing before it is submitted, consultants are not required to report unpermitted AI use to the Office of Academic Integrity; they are, however, encouraged to talk about this with the writing center director.
Here is a brief overview of consultant responsibilities:
- Refer to syllabus and assignment guidelines about the use of generative AI.
- Guide students in assessing the credibility and accuracy of information that generative AI produces.
- Help the student think rhetorically about its use or role in their writing or project.
- Discuss the consequences of using generative AI for full text submission without proper citation.
- Support students in appropriately citing generative AI.
Can students bring AI-generated work to the Reading-Writing Center?
Yes, but it is the student’s responsibility to disclose any AI use to the consultant. Otherwise, the consultant may not think to ask about a course’s AI policy.
If a student notes that AI tools were used to generate work for an assignment but the assignment does not allow for those tools to be used, the writing consultant will let the student know that using AI tools could go against the course’s academic integrity policy and assignment guidelines. In case AI was used but is not allowed, the student and consultant could brainstorm new ideas and create a plan to complete the assignment without the use of AI tools.
Attribution & Citation
In accordance with the Office of Academic Integrity, the RWC-DS recommends instructors clearly explain whether AI writing technologies can or cannot be used for assignments. If the use of AI writing technologies is permitted, the RWC-DS upholds attribution and/or citation that aligns with the course guidelines or assignment instructions. This policy also extends to multimodal forms of communication including, but not limited to, the use of AI generated images. We ask that students bring in their assignment guidelines if chatbots like ChatGPT or other generative AI tools, like the Dall-E image generator, are used for a project. Because AI guidelines often vary greatly from course to course, or even between assignments in the same course, guidelines are essential context for consultants as they work with students to ensure transparent AI use and accurate citation practices.
MLA Style’s method for citing generative AI states that writers should:
- Cite whenever you paraphrase, quote, or incorporate into your own work any content (whether text, image, data, or other) that was created by it.
- Acknowledge all functional uses of the tool (like editing your prose or translating words) in a note, your text, or another suitable location.
- Take care to vet the secondary sources the generative AI tool produces.
MLA Citation Example:
- Quoting ChatGPT’s text from a chat session is treated similarly to sharing an algorithm’s output; credit the author of the algorithm with a reference list entry and the corresponding in-text citation. Carefully consider whether citing the model as a whole or a specific chat will be most ethical and helpful to your readers.
APA Citation Example:
Unethical Uses of AI Tools
By discussing the importance of attribution, we also hope to discourage unethical uses of AI tools including, but not limited to:
- Relying exclusively on a generative AI writing tool to generate the majority of ideas and content without engaging the ideas, analyzing and shaping the material, or conducting supplementary research.
- Using a generative AI writing tool to produce an entire piece of writing that will be submitted as original work where the generative AI writing tool is not acknowledged or attributed.
- Failing to disclose AI involvement in the creation of your work.
We recognize and respect the desire to experiment with AI tools. However, we are committed to encouraging students to use these powerful tools in ways that support, rather than replace, their own work.
Limitations and Risks of AI Tools
As with any technology, there are opportunities and limitations. Generative AI writing tools are evolving, and it is important to recognize that each tool has limitations including potential preconceptions and the ability to produce false information. Here are some of the primary concerns surrounding AI tools and academic writing:
- Hallucinations & Inaccuracies: AI systems often prioritize structural plausibility and user satisfaction over actual factual accuracy.
- Missed Learning Opportunities: Critical critical thinking and analytical developmental milestones can be bypassed if text outputs are relied on too heavily.
- Product vs. Process: It risks presenting writing purely as a completed transaction rather than an iterative, cognitive process.
- Equity Issues: There is unequal access to premium AI technologies, creating discrepancies in tool quality and advancements.
Additional Resources
- ai.fsu.edu Portal
- FSU Academic Affairs: Academic Integrity and Artificial Intelligence: A Guide for Faculty
- FSU College of Arts and Sciences AI Taskforce Mission
- MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI: Working Paper Overview
- UNC Chapel Hill Writing Center: Generative AI in Academic Writing Guide