Correct. The faculty at my institution do not want any use of LLM or 'AI' technology. End of sentence. If they learn that a student used an LLM, regardless of how it was used, they send a formal academic discipline complaint to administration. It's a fucking joke.
I'm not saying throw the doors open and let loose. I'm saying that we need to find places where using these tools makes sense, follows a sense of professional ethics, and encourages (rather than replaces) critical thinking.
And the problem with your cited paper is that people who kick and scream the loudest about this at my institution (again, this is just at mine and is in no way indicative of any other institution) are the ones who have not updated their courses since I was in college. I mean that quite literally. I attended the institution I currently work at. Decades later and I could turn in papers that I wrote for their classes my freshman year and pass their classes.
Three of them sent me that same linked article. But instead of seeing the message "we need to think about how to use these things responsibly" they just read "you can do what you've done for years and nothing needs to change."
That "research" article isn't as impactful as the faculty at my institution thought.
I'm all for the thoughtful integration or rejection of these technologies based on sound pedagogical practices rooted in student learning theory. At my institution, and I want to stress n=1, they literally do not want to take time updating lessons, regardless of the reason. Llm's are just a convenient scapegoat right now.
I would argue that it's more unethical to not update your classroom lessons in over 2 decades than it is to use llm's to supplement learning.