As I upload old policy documents into ChatGPT and ask for improvements and advice, I time that it averages to give critical questions within 3.5123 seconds. Added to that, of course, it benefits that AI is not broke from the night before, is lovesick or is burning its tongue on coffee number four. In theory, it can be a critical, unbiased, quick voice in discussions. 

As my fifth cup of coffee leaves an imprint on the table, I wonder if AI's voice may count as much as mine? AI does not understand frustrations over a malfunctioning Canvas or the euphoria after seeing a student's ten for a hard course on Osiris. It also lacks an understanding of the balance between study and the extracurricular activities that make studying a student life. For example, participating in a student team or sports club, or doing board duties. Activities outside your studies enhance your skills that are essential in society, and AI misses. If I bring more insights than AI, shouldn't my own voice count more?

AI's voice would undoubtedly lead to different decisions. For example, on the DRIVE program. With a DRIVE program created by ChatGPT, AI would play a larger role within our education system (so far unbiased). However, I continue dreaming, if with AI the decision would be made to use more AI in policy making, who would be responsible? Is that the same person I can blame if my self-driving car throws me against the wall?

But yeah, with six coffees now behind me, I'm still studying automotive and not philosophy. So if I want to be sure that my concerns are justified about not letting AI decide anything and at most asking for advice, I'll just ask ChatGPT. Who can surely tell me again within 3.5123 seconds, unbiased, and admittedly without using my insights, whether I am right. No doubt AI will articulate it better than I ever could.

Morten Verdijck is an automotive student and is a member of the University Council on behalf of DAS. He is writing this column on a personal note.