Talmud Class: AI Scandal and What Our Tradition Has To Say About Judging Others

Every once in a while you read a story in the newspaper that feels like it should have been published in The Onion.

The other night, I couldn't wait to read this story to Solomon. Apparently, Dartmouth is investigating its provost, Dr. Santiago Schnell, after a Semafor investigation, and subsequent investigation by the student newspaper, The Dartmouth, revealed that much of his academic writing and recent op-eds, including a recent Washington Post op-ed about the problem of AI cheating in a university setting, were written largely by AI. 

Here is a direct quote from the article in The New York Times that made me laugh: "Dr. Schnell told The Dartmouth in a statement that he used A.I. 'for language refinement, copyediting, improving clarity and organization and making writing processes more efficient.' The newspaper then ran Dr. Schnell’s statement on his AI use through an AI detector, which flagged the statement itself as apparently written by AI Dr. Schnell did not respond to a request for comment."

When I brought this story to Solomon, he did not laugh the way I had. Instead, he raised important questions. If all of the ideas in the article were Dr. Schnell's, and AI makes it easier for him to share those ideas with others, what's the problem with using AI? And even though this technology is purported to be completely accurate, are we sure that it can it effectively determine whether someone has used AI to write or whether they have only used AI to proofread? 

Solomon's questions made me realize how quick I was to judge Dr. Schnell, and how willing I was to laugh at his expense without pausing to question the situation more fully.

What does our tradition teach us about judging people when we don't have the full story?