![\"Figure](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Figure-1-Three-ways-to-center-educators-as-we-conceptualize-human-in-the-loop-AI.png\")
<\/a> Figure 1: Three ways to center educators as we conceptualize human-in-the-loop AI.\u00a0 <\/p>\nIn this framework, AI can help you analyze patterns in student work, generate draft materials, or suggest alternative explanations, but you\u00a0remain\u00a0the one who interprets the data, leads the instruction, and decides which tools support your course goals. You might even narrate this for students: \u201cI sometimes use AI to brainstorm ideas before class, but I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0use it to run our meetings. What happens in this room is based on you and what I see you doing.\u201d That statement both reflects the law\u2019s emphasis on real human interaction and gives students a language for thinking critically about AI in their own learning.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Move 3: Evaluate AI the Way You Evaluate Textbooks <\/p>\n
AB 2370 assumes that faculty will use professional judgment when incorporating AI. One practical way to exercise that judgment is to evaluate AI\u00a0tools\u00a0the way you evaluate textbooks or other course materials.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When you consider adopting a new textbook, you\u00a0probably skim\u00a0the content, check for alignment with your learning outcomes, and look for bias or gaps. Apply the same process to AI:\u00a0<\/p>\n
Run your own prompts first.\u00a0Before recommending a tool to students, ask it to perform the tasks you plan to assign (summarizing an article, explaining a concept, modeling a paragraph).\u00a0 Check for accuracy and bias.\u00a0Compare its responses with your disciplinary knowledge. Note where it oversimplifies, where it\u00a0leaves out\u00a0key voices, or where it reflects dated or narrow perspectives.\u00a0 Align with outcomes and policy.\u00a0Ask, \u201cDoes using this tool help students practice the skills this course is designed to build, or does it short-circuit the learning process?\u201d\u00a0 <\/p>\n
You might build a short, low-stakes activity around this evaluation. For example, in a writing class, ask students to generate a draft paragraph with AI and then critique it using your rubric: \u201cWhat does the AI do well? Where does it fall short of our standards?\u201d This not only demystifies AI but also reinforces your expectations.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In your syllabus or LMS, you can include a brief \u201cAI Tools\u201d section outlining which tools are allowed, for what purposes, and under what conditions. Tying this back to the legislative\u00a0context\u2014explaining that state law requires a qualified instructor, not AI, to provide instruction and interaction\u2014can clarify why these boundaries exist.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Move 4: Turn Policy into Student-Facing Conversations\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Legislation often feels distant from our day-to-day teaching, but AI policy is already shaping student expectations. Some students assume AI is off-limits; others assume it is\u00a0required. The law gives you a reason to have explicit, human-centered conversations about it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
You might open a class session with a prompt like:\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIn what ways do you currently use AI for school, work, or life? Where do you draw the line?\u201d\u00a0 \u201cWhat do you think a \u2018good teacher\u2019 does that AI cannot do?\u201d\u00a0 \u201cGiven that state law says AI cannot replace your instructor, how should we use it\u2014if at all\u2014in this course?\u201d\u00a0 <\/p>\n
Have students respond in a quick-write, then discuss in pairs or small groups before a whole-class debrief. As they talk, you can connect their ideas to your course policies and to the broader context: national groups tracking AI-related legislation have noted that the number of AI bills introduced in state legislatures more than doubled in a single year, and California is among the states explicitly grappling with AI in education. Framing your classroom choices within that larger trend can help students see that your policies are not arbitrary\u2014they are part of a wider effort to use AI ethically and responsibly.\u00a0<\/p>\n
You can revisit this conversation mid-semester. Ask students how their AI use has changed and what they are learning about when AI helps and when it hurts. These reflective checkpoints reinforce the message that they are not passive recipients of technology, but active participants in shaping how\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0used.\u00a0<\/p>\n
California\u2019s AI law gives us something rare in higher education: a clear statement that our presence and qualifications matter in an age of rapid technological change. It does not forbid AI, nor does it require us to use it. Instead, it invites us to experiment\u2014carefully\u2014while\u00a0remaining\u00a0firmly in the driver\u2019s seat.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When we use AI as an assistant rather than a replacement, protect live teaching as human space, evaluate tools with the same care we use for textbooks, and talk openly with students about policy and practice, we do more than\u00a0comply with\u00a0legislation. We model the kind of critical, ethical engagement with technology that our students will need long after they leave our classrooms. And that is something no AI can do for us.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Note: This article was the result of a collaboration between the human author and AI programs (ChatGPT and Claude) used for idea generation and drafting, with all final decisions and revisions made by the human author.\u00a0<\/p>\n
David E. Balch, PhD, is a professor at Rio Hondo College and has published articles in the areas of ethics, humor, distance education, and AI.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Robert Blanck, MA, has 35 years\u2019 experience in teaching and administration within the fields of education and business. Blanck earned the Lean Six Sigma Black Belt designation for industrial quality control. \u00a0<\/p>\n
References\u00a0<\/p>\n
Bill Text \u2013 AB 2370. (2024).\u00a0Community\u00a0colleges:\u00a0faculty:\u00a0instructor\u00a0of\u00a0record:\u00a0qualifications.\u00a0California Legislature.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Dusseault, B., & Lee, J. (2023).\u00a0AI is already disrupting education, but only 13 states are offering guidance for schools.\u00a0Center\u00a0on\u00a0Reinventing Public Education.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Frazzini, K. (2024).\u00a0Volume of AI bills rises, even as use of systems evolves.\u00a0National Conference of State Legislatures.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Jones, B. M. (2023).\u00a0How educators can use generative AI to promote student\u00a0innovation.\u00a0Forbes.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Kolchenko, V. (2018). Can modern AI replace teachers? Not so fast!\u00a0HAPS Educator, 249\u2013251.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Lake, R. (2024).\u00a0AI is already disrupting education, but only 13 states are offering guidance for schools.\u00a0Center\u00a0on\u00a0Reinventing Public Education.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Mathews, A. (2024).\u00a0FACCC-sponsored AB 2370 is approved by\u00a0the legislature.\u00a0Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.\u00a0<\/p>\n
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2023).\u00a0Artificial intelligence and the future of teaching and learning: Insights and recommendations.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Picture this: A colleague spends Sunday night feeding her lesson outline into an AI tool, gets back a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":109120,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[24,4880,16551,560,25,56271,2819,46307,46308,37165],"class_list":["post-109119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-ai","tag-ai","tag-ai-in-higher-education","tag-ai-in-the-classroom","tag-ai-literacy","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-faculty-development","tag-policy","tag-responsible-ai-use","tag-student-learning","tag-teaching-with-technology"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=109119"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/109119\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/109120"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=109119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=109119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/ai\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=109119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}