Is Princeton creating an AI divide? While the university embraces artificial intelligence, a hidden cost barrier is preventing some students from fully accessing its potential. Should Princeton provide universal access to ChatGPT Plus, ensuring every student has an equal opportunity to thrive in the age of AI? Let's dive in.
AI is undeniably woven into the fabric of Princeton University. From the pre-read assigned to the incoming Class of 2028, which explored the profound societal and technological implications of AI, to the University's leadership in establishing a cutting-edge AI research center in collaboration with state legislators and tech giants like Microsoft and Coreweave, Princeton is clearly positioning itself at the forefront of this technological revolution. In fact, a staggering 80% of students responding to the Class of 2025 Senior Survey admitted to leveraging generative AI for assignments when permitted, highlighting its pervasive influence on academic life. And as University President Christopher Eisgruber himself stated, Princeton recognizes both the immense promise and the potential societal challenges posed by artificial intelligence, and is uniquely positioned to address them.
Like many of my fellow students, I'm a regular ChatGPT user. I personally subscribe to the Plus version because it unlocks the ability to generate a virtually unlimited number of conceptual examples, which is invaluable for grasping complex topics in my STEM courses. It also provides unrestricted access to powerful data analysis tools. However, not everyone is willing or able to spend $20 each month for this enhanced AI experience. As generative AI becomes an increasingly indispensable tool for both academic work and research endeavors, it's time for Princeton to consider providing all students with free access to ChatGPT Plus.
But here's where it gets controversial... Is it fair that some students have access to a more powerful AI assistant simply because they can afford it? This raises serious questions about equity and access in higher education.
Fortunately, there's a precedent for guaranteeing students access to advanced generative AI models at our peer institutions. Duke University, for example, provides all undergraduate students with access to the latest ChatGPT models through a private institutional agreement with OpenAI. They also offer "DukeGPT," an AI model specifically developed by the university for internal use. These initiatives effectively eliminate financial barriers to accessing cutting-edge AI technology, empowering their students with the benefits of AI research and development. Furthermore, Duke's contract with OpenAI includes provisions to protect student privacy by ensuring that no student data is stored or used to train new models. Other universities, such as the California State University system, have also implemented similar programs to provide broad access to ChatGPT and university-developed AI tools.
Currently, students who can afford more sophisticated models like ChatGPT Plus have a distinct advantage. Duke's approach makes perfect sense because it levels the playing field by removing the cost barrier to accessing the most advanced and accurate models, such as the rumored GPT-5. These models are not only faster but also significantly better at analyzing data. We shouldn't deny students the opportunity to utilize these powerful tools – tools that we are actively contributing to developing – simply because they lack the financial means. Without equal access to advanced ChatGPT models, students are not competing on a level playing field. Princeton rightly prohibits outside tutoring because it provides an unfair advantage to students who can afford it. The current situation with AI access is not fundamentally different.
We must acknowledge the reality that students are already using generative AI, whether we approve of it or not. The most effective response is to ensure equitable access, preventing the cost of superior models from exacerbating class-based disparities in learning outcomes. If the University recognizes the widespread adoption of ChatGPT among students, it can transform it into an equitable learning tool, enabling all of us to better understand the potential of advanced AI to enhance our learning experiences.
In a widely discussed article published in the New Yorker, Princeton history professor D. Graham Burnett shared the surprising results of an assignment where students were encouraged to engage in a conversation with ChatGPT about the history of attention. His article demonstrates that ChatGPT has value across a wide range of academic disciplines. When used in creative and thoughtful ways, ChatGPT is capable of far more than just generating problem set answers or summarizing course readings. In fact, the very act of questioning ChatGPT changes the way we think about machine and human learning, and students should be actively involved in this process.
Princeton's library system already invests in a vast network of online resources. If we can afford to provide access to virtually every academic journal ever published, we can certainly afford to pay for ChatGPT Plus. Given the central role of research in the Princeton undergraduate experience, these tools should be readily available to all students in a way that safeguards their data privacy and promotes the production of even higher-quality research.
And this is the part most people miss... It's not just about access; it's about preparing students for a future where AI is ubiquitous. By providing universal access to ChatGPT Plus, Princeton can empower its students to become responsible and innovative users of this technology.
Of course, few would deny that these tools have the potential for misuse. However, providing access to a more advanced ChatGPT model is unlikely to encourage new bad habits. If a student is excited about gaining access to ChatGPT Plus, they were probably already using ChatGPT in some form. So far, Princeton's professors have done an excellent job designing assessments and assignments that discourage the misuse of generative AI.
AI, whether generative or not, is undeniably the future. The 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded for the development of AlphaFold, an AI-powered model that predicts protein folding and structure. To contribute meaningfully throughout our lives in any field we choose, Princeton students need ample opportunities to experience AI and discover how it can enhance our abilities as learners. To achieve this, we all need the chance to engage with the most sophisticated models available.
But here's a thought-provoking question: Should access to advanced AI tools be considered a fundamental right for students in the 21st century, just like access to libraries and research databases? Or is it simply a perk that should be reserved for those who can afford it?
What do you think? Should Princeton provide universal access to ChatGPT Plus? Share your thoughts in the comments below! Let's discuss the future of AI and its role in education.
