Submitted by Kristin Davin; Alex Dornburg; and Hartwell Francis, curriculum director at Kituwah Academy
Generative AI is changing the way languages are learned and taught. New tools promise instant translation, personalized practice, and automated lesson creation, while platforms such as Duolingo now offer instruction in Hawaiian and Navajo. This raises a question. Should generative AI be used in teaching or learning the language?
At the Kituwah Celebration on June 6, attendees answered this question. As part of a collaboration between EBCI Youth & Adult Education, New Kituwah Academy, and UNC Charlotte, we distributed a survey to understand the community’s perspective on GenAI use. The results were compiled by Kristin Davin (kdavin@charlotte.edu), Alex Dornburg, and Hartwell Francis (hfrancis@ebci-nsn.gov).
91 people responded, including elders, Cherokee speakers, and other enrolled EBCI members and Cherokee language learners. Opposition to the use of generative AI in the teaching of Cherokee outweighed support by a margin of four to one.
Participants did see potential benefits. Generative AI could be used for “augmentative communication for people with communication impairments [and] produce a larger volume of possible language exposure and interaction,” one respondent wrote.
But those possibilities were overshadowed by concerns about distorting the Cherokee language, data sovereignty, and the environmental impact of data centers. “Language is an inherently human thing that should be kept as a human experience. There is no way for AI to comprehend or interpret that human experience correctly. Also, it’s rude to use AI when real, human speakers exist. AI is disrespectful,” another respondent wrote.
These concerns crossed age groups and levels of experience with generative AI. The most common written concern involved the environmental costs of data centers. As one respondent wrote, “The negative impacts that GenAI has on our environment considerably outweigh any potential positive impact that GenAI could have.”
Participants also repeatedly raised the question of who owns the language. Respondents noted that content entered into AI systems may be used to train future models, with respondents suggesting that sharing language through these systems risked placing community knowledge in the hands of outside companies. “The programs are for PROFIT, they learn as you feed them then teach what they’ve learned, all while charging a subscription.”
One alternative view was raised, suggesting the development of a generative AI model by community members and hosted on tribal servers. One respondent wrote, “I think if the tribe wishes to continue to use AI for generating language material, it should be from our own servers we own and an AI model we’ve trained. Not to create a giant data center like those used by Microsoft and Google, but one that is monitored on a smaller scale by our own people.”
What is clear from this survey is that the path forward remains uncertain, and the choices along with it belong to the community. We are now asking you directly: Should generative AI be used for teaching and learning Cherokee? We invite you to share your views. We are also seeking individuals interested in being interviewed on this topic. If you would like to participate, please reach out. We hope to promote deeper conversations related to the ethics and safety of AI use.
