A computer science professor, initially planning to fail a student for submitting AI-generated work, pivoted from a strict AI ban to a collaborative "AI contract." The professor, with two decades of tech and academic experience, realized their own daily use of AI tools created a hypocritical stance towards students.

This shift came after a student admitted anxiety over mastering AI tools for future careers, mirroring the professor's own unease with the technology's rapid advancement. Instead of punitive action, the professor invited students to negotiate terms for AI use, differentiating between automating tasks and bypassing critical thinking.

The resulting contracts typically permit AI for research or drafting but mandate human oversight for system architecture and design. This approach fosters collaboration and encourages students to synthesize knowledge concisely, with grades increasingly relying on oral defenses to assess genuine understanding and critical analysis.

The professor now sees AI integration as an opportunity to sharpen students' argumentation skills and critical thinking, challenging them to engage deeply rather than delegate cognitive work to machines. This method has proven effective for four academic semesters.