TL;DR
Dr. Theresa Burriss, keynote speaker for UMW’s upcoming Reimagining the Liberal Arts in the Age of AI conference, frames the AI–humanity relationship through the metaphor of “mending” rather than resolving — using story rather than argument as the entry point to hard conversations. Drawing on Appalachian studies, feminist theory, and existentialist philosophy (with a Derridean preference for “both/and” over “either/or”), she argues that productive tension is unavoidable and necessary: between authenticity and artificiality, unity and diversity, nature and nurture, AI as tool versus AI as thought partner.
On pedagogy, she can tell when students offload entirely to AI (”vapid rhetoric, no voice”) but acknowledges sophisticated prompting can yield genuinely authentic output, complicating older definitions of student work.
On representation, she warns that AI replicates and amplifies centuries of stereotyping of marginalized communities like Appalachia, citing a case where faculty generated fake Appalachians via ChatGPT instead of engaging real ones.
On environmental justice — informed by her seat on the Virginia Council on Environmental Justice — she connects data centers to Appalachia’s long history as a “national sacrifice zone,” noting that whether they help or harm a community depends almost entirely on local leadership and civic participation.
She defends the liberal arts as training in critical and creative thinking and in decolonizing the imagination (drawing on bell hooks), and sees a democratizing role for AI in giving voice to people with expertise but not writing skill. She rejects both AI absolutism and AI refusal, advocating instead for engaged middle-ground negotiation. Her hope: that people are pushing back on for-profit homogenization, and that E.O. Wilson’s biophilia — the innate human pull toward the real and the natural — will persist alongside the artificial.
Welcome and Conference Context
Anand: Well, welcome back everybody. We’re really excited to talk today to Dr. Theresa Burriss, who’s an independent multidisciplinary Appalachian studies scholar and educator. Thank you so much for joining us today, Theresa.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: Thank you very much for having me. I’m looking forward to speaking with you all.
Anand: Great. Thanks. And I’m really excited to have this discussion because I’m looking forward to welcoming you to UMW later this summer in July for the Reimagining the Liberal Arts in the Age of AI conference, and you’re one of our keynote speakers, which I’m looking forward to.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: Thank you. I was very honored when Brent Blevins invited me to speak. So, hopefully, I will contribute to the discussion.
Anand: Well, I remember her telling the rest of the organizing committee about seeing you speak at another conference and how happy she was with that discussion and really wanted to bring that to campus. So, I’m glad we have a chance to do that.
“Mend a Story”: The Origin of the Keynote Title
Anand: I want to ask you a little bit about that keynote so that we can kind of whet the appetite of everybody that’s watching so they have a sense of what to look forward to, and tell us a little bit about the title because the title starts with “Mend a Story.” What I love about that is that both of those words, mend and story, are really pulling in some really interesting perspectives already—to think about mending rather than even reconciling and trying to recapture or correct something, and then thinking of it as a story as opposed to an argument. Tell us a little bit about that. How do you put that together and how do you envision it?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: Well, I love that you have picked up on that. The symbolism is important, but let me say this: Mend is actually the title of a painting that my artist friend, Suzanne Stryker, gifted me, and it is of a spider in the middle of a web. The title of her painting is Mend.
But it is very fitting in this context, like you said, of there seeming to be some kind of friction or disruption, if you will, and we are mending it. But the way that I started thinking about this and reconciling authenticity and AI, I used Suzanne’s painting as a launching pad. Instead of writing her a traditional thank-you note, I decided to write her a poem on my own without using AI.
Well, my psychologist husband—who is not a creative, he is a scientist—used AI and fed it with prompts. He used Copilot and generated a poem to give to Suzanne. So, this is where this actually originated. But I think that to your point, I mean, that’s really mending the story. As an Appalachian studies scholar, I feel like stories are a way to invite people into conversation in a non-threatening way, as opposed to an argument. And so it really fits in both capacities to demonstrate where AI fits in our lives.
Anand: I love that sense of maybe even fitting AI and humanity into this web. That’s something to explore. I like that.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: Definitely. Yeah.
Living in Tension: Authenticity, Artificiality, and Existentialism
Stefan: And you mentioned this a bit with authenticity. But I know in the keynote, it sets up kind of the authenticity and artificiality tension there. But it’s not something to overcome. It’s just like, well, you know, we can kind of live in this tension. And maybe there’s a question of how to live well within the tension. Do you have any kind of thoughts or reflections on that?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I very much do. In fact, one of the things that I talk about with Suzanne’s painting—yes, it is an authentic painting, but it is not the web and the spider in and of themselves. It is a representation of that. So, even that is problematized: the authenticity of that web and spider.
And Stefan, to your point, I think that all of us live with tensions in our lives, whether we name them as such or even acknowledge them. One of the issues that I talk about in particular—and it derives from feminist theory, but I use it in an Appalachian context—is this tension: What does it mean when we live with—I live with the tension of Appalachia in the singular and Appalachias in the plural. Because going back to feminist theory, there is political might, if you will, in unity and in rallying around a particular identity, but in that process, the diversity within that unity is lost. So, I think that here again, whether humans overtly acknowledge it or not, we live in constant tensions. I think that some people want to avoid that because it’s uncomfortable, but it is inevitable, is my thought.
Anand: That discomfort is a really interesting aspect of it. Living in tension, or existing in that kind of tension, sometimes is really productive, as uncomfortable as it might be. And that’s another aspect of this when we’re thinking about authenticity that I wanted to ask you about. You reference in the abstract about the keynote talking about existentialism and thinking about even kind of juxtaposing or presenting different positions there from Søren Kierkegaard to Nietzsche. There’s some natural tension there between their perspectives as, you know, maybe living more with a religious self before God versus a self-creation from another perspective. Do you think that maybe there’s one of those accounts of authenticity that sits better with you, or that you think might be more useful? Is there a benefit of having that tension between the two as we start to explore it?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: So, I default to Derrida and deconstruction: that it is typically a “both/and,” rarely is it an “either/or.” Because I was a philosophy major at Emory University and took an entire semester seminar on Nietzsche, I lean a bit more towards Nietzsche just in certain arguments, I will say.
But I think that all of the existentialists invite us to consider our place in the world, and each person has to determine what philosophy resonates with them the most. I mean, Kierkegaard is certainly going to resonate stronger with some of my friends who are very much religiously aligned, whereas with Nietzsche—I mean, I will say, thinking about Nietzsche and “the herd,” here again, I studied him ad nauseam.
I used to be—I was just talking to somebody recently about this—I used to be a strict, strict existentialist in the sense that I thought you were born as a blank slate. Then I became a mother, and I realized that was folly. There is definitely—talk about tension—there is a tension between nature and nurture. My two sons definitely came into this world prescribed certain ways, so it didn’t matter what the nurture was, the nature was there. So, even a philosopher is going to complicate it. And, you know, I mean, what does Walt Whitman say? “Do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes.”
Story vs. Argument: The Pedagogical Entry Point
Anand: Let me ask you a little bit about this because I think you’re right. There are limits to that tabula rasa approach that we could just be a blank slate. Stefan and I both studied a lot of philosophy. I was an undergraduate philosophy major as well, and studied rhetoric. What I always enjoyed about that was the sense of that inherent contradiction, the conflict, the discomfort.
So, I want to go back to something you said earlier about why it’s story versus argument, because there’s an access point, and there is an attempt at an access of comfort to be able to welcome people in. Not many philosophical discussions are that welcoming, necessarily, or that comfortable. So, I’m wondering how you view that tension even between the entry point and then when you get to the heart of it and how you start to work through it. This is something that we often experience where our backgrounds are in debate. We were actually debate partners in college, and there is that worry from some people that debate is just confrontational and argumentative, and we want something that’s more consensus-based. But even when you offer that entry point of something consensus-based or not as confrontational, there’s still some conflict there with trying to resolve something.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: And I think that that is where the growth occurs for multiple parties. Where my mind went was, as a lifelong educator, it is my goal to create a safe space for my students. I don’t want any student to feel alienated. Now, I do hold accountability that there is civil discourse; you treat others with respect, especially when you have differing opinions. But it’s incumbent upon the educator to create that safe space in the classroom. That’s the opening; that’s the story opening. And then once that is there, that is where we can begin to engage.
Debate does not have to be negative. I mean, I’m a law school dropout. I went to law school for one year, and it wasn’t because of the debate that I didn’t like it; it just wasn’t my career path. In fact, I enjoyed that and I still enjoy that. I like to be challenged, and I think if I mirror that to my students, it works. I’ve witnessed that over 29 years, if that makes sense.
Student Voice and the Authenticity Continuum
Stefan: Great. Thank you. You know, you talked about teaching a couple of times, and we talked about authenticity. When students come into the classroom now, a lot of them have been using or are familiar with some of these generative models for a while. Not only is their output impacted by that, but kind of their own conversations—whether they’re textual or otherwise—with these AIs.
It’s kind of hard to say because it’s maybe more in the tension, but do you feel their voice is different, maybe in both a literal sense but also just in a more figurative sense? Like, how they’re expressing themselves or what they’re thinking? Do you see how the language models are impacting whatever we want to define as the authenticity of the voices, even if it’s just your intuitive sense?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I can definitely tell when a student—I look at the use of AI on a continuum, with no AI usage on one end, a lot of things in between, and total AI reliance on the other. I definitely can tell when a student has completely and holistically relied on AI because often it’s vapid rhetoric. There is no voice. I think because I’ve been an educator for so long and a lifelong reader, you know when the voice is missing.
Now, I will say, as students get more sophisticated—this is something that maybe we’ll talk about in a bit—the input, what humans input into the AI engine, determines so much of what comes out. I have read some things where there’s been more of an intentional, creative input, and then the outcome seems more authentic. But here again, I mean, that too is problematic.
To get to your point of how I help students think about their voice, I don’t ever want to give up the importance of discussion. In the classroom, face-to-face—even when I was teaching in a doctoral program in education, it was through the computer because it was virtual—those conversations are critical, even for us as adults, because our voices are evolving as we’re changing as humans, hopefully. So, our voice changes. But I think that here again, providing that safe space to explore who they are and engage in conversations with each other as peers, and also with me, is critical.
Pedagogical Vertigo: When the Tools Get Good
Anand: That idea of what authenticity means anymore, I think, is part of what is throwing a lot of faculty off. I talk to a lot of colleagues who are experiencing a kind of pedagogical vertigo, where the ground’s not really stable underneath us anymore. Some people might say that they can tell that something’s written by AI, but then they see something where a student has it totally written by AI, but the student put a lot of work into the prompting, discussion, and preparation of materials. Then you think, okay, well, then they did do a lot of work, and it doesn’t seem vapid, and there’s some real qualitative value to this output, but it’s not what we would have considered authentic student writing before. Does that mean it’s inauthentic? No, it’s a different kind of authenticity. And so that’s something to negotiate and kind of manage.
I’m curious how you see that perhaps going, especially as we’re looking at both what you’ve already identified as students developing a better facility with the tools and learning how to use them maybe more responsibly because they’re thinking, “I’m really putting a lot into this,” but then it’s writing it, as well as the tools just getting so much better. I mean, we were joking around a little bit about the use that I was making of Claude, and I often talk about how I’m using Claude in my writing, preparing questions for interviews, and developing things. I feel like it’s expanding my capabilities in some important ways. But it certainly makes me question: well, if it’s different than what I would have done on my own, does that mean it’s inauthentic, or does that mean it’s a thought partner? Can I view it as just a tool anymore if it’s contributing in that way? It seems really complicated. How do you negotiate some of that?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I think it is a constant negotiation. Even when you get to that output and it does appear to be more authentic, however we’re defining that—and that is such a difficult term to define and agree upon—I will say there’s still—I encourage human intervention even after the output. Yes, I do encourage that.
To your point, AI is a tool; that is my belief. It does not replace humans; it cannot replace humans. I know there are a lot of doomsday sayers that will say we’re going to be run by robots. And as a runner—I don’t know if you all just saw that a robot just got the half-marathon world record.
Anand: We just talked about that a couple of weeks ago in one of our updates, actually. Yeah, that was something.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: Okay. Well, I will never run that fast, so, and I will never generate text as quickly as AI. As humans, we have limitations, and technology—whether it’s in the medical field, or education, or the space race, whatever—technology is to enhance what humans are capable of doing.
And so, I see AI as an important disruptor that very much needs to be monitored with guardrails, with critical thinking, ethics, and morals. Because we know, and we’ve already witnessed, how it can be used for extreme harm and ill. To the point of a young man in California committing suicide—I listened to a gentleman who talked to our Rotary Club in Bristol about the dangers of young people and chatbots, and who’s controlling them. There are—I’m not telling you anything new—very sinister people out there.
One of the things that I did want to mention talking about young people—and I can’t remember the study right now—but it was about how AI is dangerous to young, developing minds because those synapses that fire in what we know as learning don’t fire when AI is doing all the work. So here again, I think these conversations are complicated. We’re still figuring things out. What role does it play at different age levels?
Anand: Yeah. And I guess thinking about that role of where it goes, even if it is developing much further, maybe it’s that difference between replacement versus displacement. And so it’s not thinking that we’re going to not have a place, but it’s going to be a very different placement for humans, depending upon what we do with it. That’s one of the things that I’ve heard employers say: AI is not going to replace human jobs; it’s humans who don’t have AI literacy that will be replaced.
Representation, Appalachia, and Algorithmic Stereotyping
Stefan: Yeah, it seems like a necessary condition, even if it may not be a sufficient condition, in the workforce these days, especially moving forward or for new hires.
But the other thing I want to ask about—I know a lot of your scholarly work is grounded in Appalachia and your interests there. Of course, these are related: there are questions of how Appalachia is represented by human scholars, or anybody working in that area, and then of course there are questions about how Appalachia, or places like Appalachia that are outside the dominant narrative, are represented in these models. Do you have any thoughts on all your work in the field, regarding those discussions of representation that probably arose pre-generative AI, and where that conversation might be occurring now in terms of how the models are representing Appalachia? We’ve seen that as the models and the training datasets expand, you can add representations, but even adding that representation introduces some kind of value choices.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: Yes, there is. As you noted, for literally centuries, Appalachia has been marginalized and reduced to stereotypes. Even to this day, certain writers have not contributed in a positive way to that. I’m not going to name any names right now, but I think that there is a real danger in relying on it.
I actually have a case study that I can share now on the podcast, or that I’m going to share at the conference, about how a colleague of mine at a state institution was outraged at a conference. Some faculty members were teaching a community engagement class, and instead of engaging the community—going out and engaging Appalachians—they created Appalachians with ChatGPT.
And so consequently, given the web—because that’s where it pulls from—all of that negative stereotyping is going to come to the fore, and it’s not going to produce the very real, nuanced, diverse populations that exist in our region. So, I think that there are real dangers. And also, I mean, I’m sure you all have talked about the algorithms and how they multiply, and if it’s catching onto something, it’s going to keep pulling from that. It’s like a self-fulfilling prophecy, no matter what the group is. So, I have real concerns.
Simulated Populations and Self-Representation
Anand: To ask you a little bit about that case study, I think what I find most fascinating about it is that this is a move that’s happening with lots of populations. There have been a lot of discussions, and I’ve heard some very optimistic views, on the idea of simulating environments and simulating populations within the use of generative AI to represent different groups. So maybe instead of polling actual people, you can run a simulated environment of a large population to be able to see how they’ll react to a polling item, or an election, or what they might do in a market economy. That point about the construction of that community or that population drawing from generally available materials—the assumption, of course, for many of us is, well, that’s just the way they’re already represented, so why wouldn’t we want to continue that representation? But there’s not a chance for that population to better represent themselves within that, and it further kind of entrenches this marginalization as you were talking about.
Is there a good way—aside, let’s say, that we can’t just stop those types of representation—is there a better way of going about that? Is there a better way to make sure that marginalized groups can own or control their own representation within generative AI, or within population studies, or within simulations? Obviously, in that case you mentioned, you make a good case that it shouldn’t have been done that way. But what if we’re worried that it’s going to continue to be done? How do we counter that?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I think the only way that that can be countered—and oh my gosh, I mean, we’re talking years and years of information that has been accumulated on the web, and to undo that and to provide a counter-discourse. I think about counter-narratives; even still, even in print, that is a challenge.
And this is, I think, one of the dangers of AI: that it continues to, as you said, marginalize marginalized groups. I mean, who has access even to the internet? I mean, we think it’s a universal thing, but it ain’t. I mean, even where I live between Bristol and Abingdon, we did not get broadband until it was like six years ago. And there are still places over in the coalfields where I can go and I don’t have a cell phone signal.
So, I don’t think that there is an easy fix to that. It’s something that pollsters, researchers, educators, students, and politicians all need to be aware of. I mean, the paradigm that you’re operating from is not the paradigm of so many others.
Data Centers, Environmental Justice, and Appalachia as Sacrifice Zone
Stefan: You know, it’s interesting. You talk about how some people are still disconnected, at least in terms of broadband, which you kind of need to do all but the simplest tasks, right? So, it’s an area that’s disconnected, but then they have trouble connecting all the areas, but they don’t have any trouble building the data centers, right? We’ve always had data centers, but Virginia has become kind of the most significant location, right, in the conversation globally.
I’m wondering, with your seat on the Virginia Council on Environmental Justice, there are a lot of issues surrounding data centers. What are some of the things you think about regarding environmental justice? I remember studying this decades ago for a debate topic and learning about brownfields and all those types of things. But how do you kind of contextualize the data center debate and conversation in terms of environmental justice?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I think that it is another environmental justice (EJ) issue. Just as we have seen—whether it’s brownfields or, I think about the Kingston coal ash spill that occurred in northeast Tennessee, I think it was in 2008. The cleanup—all that coal ash went to a poor, Black community in Alabama. This is just another form of environmental injustice because typically—not always, but typically and historically—it’s “not in my backyard.” If you’ve got the money and the political access, it ain’t going to happen in your backyard.
It also feeds into how Appalachia historically has been known as a national sacrifice zone because of our coal. First, it was timber, then it was coal. And we’re still extracting coal—not just deep mining, but also surface mining. With the energy required and our reliance still on fossil fuels, it remains to be an issue.
I’ve taught environmental and social justice classes, and so oftentimes these communities are held hostage. Because it’s a single industry, they don’t have other opportunities to make the same kind of money. So, they’re held hostage. And it’s not like the industry or corporations can go someplace else, because the fossil fuels exist in particular places.
But I am very concerned not only about the environmental health but the physical health of the humans. I’ve done a lot of work on black lung disease with coal miners in central Appalachia. That was on the decline because of laws that were enacted under President Carter in the 70s, but it has skyrocketed again for a variety of reasons. But here again, it’s a major concern.
And we haven’t even talked about the water consumption that is necessary for the cooling of these data centers. I know that in the Virginia legislature, there are several bills that are addressing data centers from different capacities. For example, one is to require them to reveal the volume of water intake. Yeah, I mean, we have a long way to go to figure all this out.
I don’t think that AI is going to go away. I don’t think data centers are going to go away; I’m a realist in this regard. But one of my friends who is in a different industry but is very environmentally conscious sent me an article about the untapped—pun intended—opportunity with geothermal, and that could be something that is much more environmentally friendly, I’ll say.
Local Leadership and the Civic Stakes of Data Center Siting
Anand: So when we think about communities that are grappling with this, figuring out whether we welcome a data center in or not, it seems like most of the reaction has been one extreme or the other. Either we welcome them in and we cover everything up because we have a tax base there that’s going to benefit the community—I have a colleague who was doing FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to get local boards of supervisors to release the information about how much water was going to be used, and they were really just trying to hide that—and then you have the other extreme where it’s just the NIMBY (”Not In My Backyard”) response: “We don’t want it here, you can’t do it here.”
Is there a case to be made that we need to be open to data centers coming into our communities because we have a better chance of regulating them, of making sure they use renewable energies, explore geothermal, have a way to clean water, recycle water, and have better cooling systems and processes? Getting back to tension, is it difficult to take an environmental justice position and welcome the data centers in with the idea that they’re going to go somewhere, and at least we can better monitor and regulate them? Or would it be better to say no, let them go and manage it somewhere else? How do we work through that in practical terms, even if we recognize that by going through that we are kind of infringing on some of the values that we have?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I think it is dependent on municipality leadership. To your point about your colleague submitting FOIAs because the board of supervisors was withholding that critical information: if you were going to have a data center in your community, it is up to leadership to require and hold accountable all the information, and to mandate, “If you’re going to come here, you have to follow these policies and procedures,” instead of just turning a blind eye and saying, “Oh, it’s all about the...” Well, and they get big tax breaks too, which I don’t understand.
So yeah, I would say the bottom line is it depends on leadership, and that’s why it is so critical that the community votes. That’s where, no matter your race, class, or gender, go vote, because they are the ones who are going to be in charge if you have these data centers come in.
The Liberal Arts: Decolonizing the Imagination
Stefan: We focus a lot on the liberal arts, especially with the center, and it’s kind of a broad conceptualization. Lots of times when I have these kinds of opportunities, I ask: what do you think of when you think of the liberal arts? What is a core identifying principle or idea, and how do you think that can help facilitate these discussions—whether they’re related to authenticity, the environment, the overlap between the two, or the contextualization of Appalachia? How do you think we could bring that forward in a humanities-focused education?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I think of the liberal arts as an education in critical thinking, in creative thinking, and in what does it mean to be an engaged, informed, contributing citizen. It invites you—this is what I loved about being a philosophy major. Even though my mechanical engineering father asked me, “What the heck are you going to do with that when you graduate?” philosophy invited me to think about ideas I had never even thought about.
Interestingly, I just finished writing a keynote address that I’m giving tomorrow at Emory & Henry University for the Mosaic ceremony, which is a cording ceremony before graduation on Saturday for underrepresented groups. I use bell hooks as my launching pad, and how she talks about the importance of not only decolonizing our minds, but our imaginations. I feel like the liberal arts do that for us. They help guide us to think about how the very strong social messaging we get oftentimes is used to control, to further power, and to disenfranchise. So, I very much see the liberal arts playing a critical role in AI for all of those reasons.
Democratizing Voice: CityGov and the Non-Writer Expert
Anand: Thinking about the keynote that you’re giving and some of the discussion we’ve had about the way that AI can homogenize the voice—it can bring people more toward the median and remove a lot of the difference. Unfortunately, some of the arguments given for expanding data centers, expanding the technology, and expanding AI is that it democratizes access; that it no longer requires the same education, or access to education, or to means of technology. It’s cheaper, it’s more readily available for people to be able to write, translate, and express themselves. Back to the tension between the two: is there a way to reconcile the two? Is there a way to move forward? Is it about recognizing that tension?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: So, I’m involved in this open platform called CityGov. These are some friends of mine who live in New York, and two of my friends are going through a master’s program at Harvard. Sam came up with CityGov, and he told me, “I employ your language because of what you, Theresa, said about trying to reconcile.”
AI is a part of it. It doesn’t have to be for people who are contributing articles to this open platform, but what AI does—not everybody is a writer, and I recognize that as a writer, but there are people who have incredible experience and best practices that should be shared, whether it’s with other municipalities, educators, healthcare providers, or whatever the realm. You might not be a great writer, but you know what you’re doing and you’ve got a track record of proven success. Your democratized voice through AI makes what you know accessible to others.
I think about my two sons; they are very different. My older son is very much an existential nerd like his mother. My younger son—school was not for him. He works in the field in construction, in commercial construction. Both of them are brilliant. If Campbell, my younger son, wanted to share best practices, writing is not his thing. He hates it. But if AI were to enable him to share what he knows are best practices in the field—I mean, he educates me all the time just by talking to me—look at what he could do through AI. So, that’s how I see that platform.
Navigating the Extremes: AI Refusers vs. Concentration of Power
Stefan: I was thinking just about a couple of the tensions. I always see—I’ve been telling people—well, if we don’t build more data centers, then the people who are going to get access to the AI are the biggest corporations and the military. It’s going to get really expensive, and you already kind of see some of that lately. If we don’t have more data centers, then you and me, we might lose meaningful access.
And then I think—I don’t know if you saw—but Anthropic just made a deal with Elon Musk to use all his data centers. I’ve really never used Grok. I tried it a couple of times, but I would never pay because I’m not an Elon Musk fan, and the other ones could do the same thing I needed it for. So, it really wasn’t much of a moral quandary. But now that line’s blurred. I love Claude, and I probably do use that all the time. So it’s like, well, what am I supposed to do now? Am I really just going to—I’ll keep using Claude. But there aren’t just so many clear answers to lots of these quandaries, right? It’s a general-purpose technology. It’s going to be used for things we like and we don’t like.
When you have conversations with people, sometimes they are very much, “I don’t want to use AI because it causes environmental harm.” How do you engage in those conversations when you meet extremists on one side or the other?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I have both in my life. In fact, I think about my colleagues at Transilvania University in Brașov, Romania, where I did my Fulbright. They are in the Faculty of Letters, and they have a zero-tolerance policy for AI. Now, that doesn’t mean that Romania isn’t employing AI and creating data centers, because I just read a newsletter today talking about a new data center there, but that’s their position. I even have a colleague at Radford University who—do you remember blue books, everyone? Yeah, they’re going back to blue books.
There’s something to be said about that. But I feel like to put your head in the sand is not doing your students a favor. I’m not dismissive of my friends and colleagues who do that; I understand the principle behind it. But to think that AI is not going to be a part of our lives—I think that’s just not realistic. So Stefan, I don’t know. I think it’s just a tough conversation when you’re having it on both sides. I try to—I’m a negotiator and try to be a peacemaker and find that middle ground, and engage in authentic, meaningful discussion.
Closing: Hope, Biophilia, and the Pull of the Real
Anand: And that’s what we hope you do when you come to campus in July. That’ll be great. We’ll put you to work as the peacemaker and see how we can bridge some of those differences wherever possible. We’re so appreciative of you taking your time to talk with us.
The last question I just wanted to ask: what gives you hope, maybe in a Derridean or existential sense, and/or what’s the question you’ve not yet figured out how to answer?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I think what gives me hope is that people are pushing back on this intense trend—going back to the conversation about corporations—we are in a for-profit society, but I think it is so important that people push back on that, and I see it happening. I don’t know that it’s happening at the pace that it should be happening.
The questions—there are so many questions, and there are questions I don’t even know are questions, and that’s part of life too. But my hope is that—I mean, I’m looking outside my window. I live in the most beautiful part of the world in the Appalachian Mountains, and I do not want people to substitute the artificial for the real.
I think about the natural environment, going back to the origins of place-based education. I think about E.O. Wilson’s biophilia hypothesis and that innate desire he says humans possess to be connected to nature. I believe in that, and I hope—and I see evidence of that—persisting in spite of the artificial intelligence proliferation, if you will.
Anand: Well, that’s great. Thank you for that. For anybody that’s watching that wants to learn more about your work, where can they find you other than on July 22nd and 23rd at UMW?
Dr. Theresa Burriss: They can just do a Google search, or they can do an AI search and find me.
Anand: Excellent. Excellent. Well, thanks so much for joining us. I look forward to welcoming you to campus, and enjoy that beautiful nature that you live in.
Dr. Theresa Burriss: I indeed will. Thank you.