Amanda Ross

Editor-In-Chief

This post was originally published on November 12.

On Nov. 10, 2025, the Makerspace in the Lilley Library announced that they would be providing AI services in the space. This is part of a larger push from the University to integrate AI into its curriculum, though student reactions to the news may reflect a growing pushback to the technology’s inclusion.

The Makerspace is an area towards the back of the Lilley Library where a number of machines and tech accessories are available for students to utilize. Before Monday, this included but was not limited to 3D printers, sewing machines, and a button maker. Monday morning an announcement was sent out college-wide informing students that the space would now include an AI creatorspace. IPads are now available with the paid version of three AI softwares: Chat GPT, MidJourney, and an AI music software called Suno. The AI creatorspace is open from Monday to Friday, from 9:30 am to 4:30 pm. 

Several students quickly voiced their displeasure with the addition on YikYak. YikYak is a social media site that requires students to have a verifiable .edu account to post on individual college forums. 

“The addition of an AI maker space to the Lilley Library is something I refuse to support,” One user wrote. They received 209 upvotes, the platform’s version of a like button. A second user then replied, saying, “Put tuition towards better resources than AI slop.” and received 113 upvotes. To give students a more official avenue with which to voice their thoughts, the Behrend Beacon launched a two-day survey regarding the change. The survey was conducted anonymously to encourage student participation and honesty. 

The survey found that out of the 11 students surveyed, only one indicated that they were very likely to use the space. The other ten indicated that they were unlikely or very unlikely to use the space. When asked if they had any thoughts on the university’s use of AI, one student responded, “It’s so strange that teachers absolutely hate the use of AI, and then the school has an entire space for it. I think there are proper ways to use AI (spell check, brainstorming, etc.) and wrong ways to use it (entire paragraphs/essays, tests). There should be some sort of balance between the two, and I think it would help teachers and students x1000 to clarify how to use AI for good.”

Another said, “Our money could be going to better things. I don’t see why we need an AI makerspace.”

A common theme in responses was the referral to AI generated words or images as ‘slop’, or something of low quality. A third student wrote, “…Supporting the use of [AI tools] that actively discredit real work done by real people and creates more slop with less real benefit for the people both making and viewing the art is obscene.” A fourth said, “AI art and writing is putting artists and writers out of jobs more and more each day and it isn’t even good work.” 

It should be noted, this is far from the first integration of AI into the university curriculum. Penn State has strived to be a leader in the AI space, with such programs at the Nittany AI Alliance and the Center for Socially Responsible Artificial Intelligence. In April 2021, the AI Hub was formed at University Park as part of an initiative to further AI research at the university. For reference, Chat GPT launched its first public model in Nov. 2022. The University has also chosen to deliberately not form a singular policy on AI, to give instructors flexibility regarding how they choose to use AI in their classes. Yet, this broad approach has also given way to confusion over how much or how little AI is being utilized. 

Recently, a similar but less widespread controversy played out over Canvas’ introducing AI tools into the side of the website used by instructors. This includes a tool called Timelygrade, which claims to streamline rubric creation and initial feedback through AI-generated suggestions. In one response, a student wrote, “Our planet is being destroyed because teachers are becoming too lazy to grade assignments as well.” However, it is unclear if Penn State faculty have access to TimelyGrader as it is a paid addition to the Canvas software and there has been no reporting from Penn State about whether or not the tool is available. Without evidence, there’s no reason to believe that professors are using AI tools in grading. 

While directed at a singular incident, this response reflects a growing trend of dissatisfaction in the face of AI. Despite the outrage however, there does not seem to be any significant action regarding these concerns. When asked, a worker at the Makerspace said they had only received one email about the matter, and no in-person complaints. It is also currently too early to tell if the space has garnered any significant traffic.