The University of California launched the AI Buddy Program in July, pairing Office of the President staff with different levels of AI expertise to meet once or twice a week and learn from each other. The voluntary initiative encourages staff to explore tools including ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, but faculty members have raised concerns about data privacy and the long-term role of AI in university work.
The program's sign-up form lets participants select which AI tools they want to learn, and the University advises staff to speak with their supervisors before joining. A UC Office of the President spokesperson said the program aims to facilitate collaborative learning among staff.
Privacy questions around AI tools
Tobias Higbie, chair of external relations for the Council of UC Faculty Associations, said the UC should be cautious when implementing AI tools because they can risk students' data security. He pointed to how AI companies typically handle user input.
"When you input information into most of these models, the companies use that information for further training," said Higbie, a professor of history and labor studies. "The licenses that campuses have may limit some of that, and we don't really have access to all of those licenses."
UCLA currently holds licenses with OpenAI, Gemini, Copilot, and NotebookLM, with the latter three offered free to students and staff. Higbie urged the UC to publicize its contracts with AI vendors, saying the University's costs remain unclear.
"We don't really understand how much they're paying for their licenses," he said. "But every time they use it, it costs money."
Dependency and workforce concerns
Hal Hershfield, a professor of marketing, behavioral decision-making, and psychology at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, said the program encourages AI dependency but its specific impacts are uncertain. He compared the situation to earlier technological shifts.
"Whether that will have negative ramifications is harder to say," Hershfield said. "Are we dependent on calculators now to do math? Yes. Is that a problem? I don't know."
Higbie took a stronger position, arguing the UC should hire more faculty and staff instead of spending on AI. He said the buddy program resembles an effort to reduce the workforce.
"The AI buddy system really looks like a push to replace work and workers by using AI chatbots. … But the university does not seem to be aware of that," he said.
For staff exploring AI tools at work, the program offers a structured way to build skills, but the privacy concerns raised by faculty apply directly to anyone inputting University data into commercial chatbots. Workers should check which tools their campus licenses cover and ask supervisors about data protections before using AI with sensitive information. Training resources for AI for Education and AI for IT & Development can help staff understand the capabilities and limits of these systems before they commit to a learning track.
Why this matters for IT and development professionals
University staff who participate in the AI Buddy Program will gain hands-on experience with the same tools used across industries, but the program's voluntary structure means individual workers must set their own learning goals. The privacy questions raised by faculty are practical concerns for anyone handling institutional data: before entering information into an AI tool, confirm whether the vendor retains that input for training and what the campus license actually covers. The broader dispute over whether AI spending should replace hiring is a signal that AI skills alone won't protect jobs - professionals should pair tool proficiency with an understanding of how their organization values and budgets for human work.
Your membership also unlocks:
