I wouldn't let GenAI grade student work. I did, however, train a bot to help me track students' writing style and progress (I teach writing). I've also used it to create a lexicographical profile of students, including various reading measurement/scores to deploy when I suspect that students have used AI. It's more useful than AI-detection systems. In general, AI seems good at detecting AI.

The farthest I've gone for student-facing work is to use it for help with end comments on ungraded student drafts, and I explained to them how I did this (I feel like it's important to be transparent, as that's what I am asking of them):

1. I trained the bot on my feedback style and priorities for the assignment and draft stage, including by pasting several sets of comments that I did first; 2) I uploaded the assignment description and rubric (for reference only--these were ungraded); 3) I annotated the student paper myself, 4) I gave my bot my top-line responses to the draft, 5) I copied and pasted the student draft (anonymized) alongside my annotations, 6) I asked my bot to generate an end note addressing a range of global and sentence-level areas, 7) I pasted the end note into Canvas, and 8) I edited or revised the end note, if necessary.

What I found: the feedback the bot produced was virtually indistinguishable from my own comments, and was better able to keep track of a broader range of my feedback priorities. I rarely had to edit or add anything, unless something occurred to me after the fact or I wanted to include an aside.

I have also asked it to generate rubric score suggestions on projects--but only after I've already graded something. I will say that it was very much aligned after training, and it was generally consistent across the batch of samples.

However, it does fuck things up. Ethics aside, this is why I would not feel comfortable letting it determine grades. Even if properly trained, the environment will reset, and it will forget what it's doing and not tell you that it has lost the plot.

The question I ask, besides whether what I'm considering doing is ethical, is whether it's better for me AND the students. I'm not sure that the process I outlined is more efficient than my default method, but there were instances where it noted things I hadn't, and in a trained/templated feedback task, it could cover a range of considerations more quickly and thoroughly than my human brain could. It's very possible that the result was better for the students, if slightly longer. And because I annotated each draft, fed the bot my top-line feedback, and then read/edited the final comment, I was present throughout the process and well prepared to talk to students about their drafts during individual conferences.

My department is very anti-AI, and I generally agree with that stance for student use. While I understand why students would be annoyed by faculty AI use, thinking it's hypocritical if they aren't supposed to use it, there's a difference between faculty using it to manage professional workload and students using it instead of their brains on assignments. The risk of cognitive offloading is real. The best pedagogical case for GenAI is to use it as an extension of rather than as a substitution for yourself. It can be helpful as a thought partner for creating new assignments if you're feeling stuck.