Professors are fighting an uphill battle against the intrusion of AI into education, and it’s forcing them to rethink how they instruct their students, many of whom have already become hopelessly dependent on the tech.
“It’s driving so many of us up the wall,” one told The Guardian in a new piece that interviewed more than a dozen professors in the humanities.
“I now talk about AI with my students not under the framework of cheating or academic honesty but in terms that are frankly existential,” Dora Zhang, a literature professor at UC Berkeley said. “What is it doing to us as a species?”
Alas, students looking for an easy “A” may not be interested in philosophical inquiries on how AI is fundamentally changing how we interact with the world and with each other — and indeed, according to a burgeoning body of research, how our brains work.
One canary in the coal mine comes from a Carnegie Mellon study published in early 2025 that found that knowledge workers who regularly used and trusted the accuracy of AI tools were losing their critical thinking skills. An earlier study found a link between students who relied on ChatGPT and memory loss, procrastination, and worsening academic performance. And an MIT study that performed EEG scans on subjects who were asked to write essays with and without ChatGPT found that AI users had the lowest levels of cognitive engagement during the tasks.
Working in the trenches, most professors, especially in the humanities, probably didn’t need formal research to tell them what those studies found, when they could easily intuit it by interacting with their pupils. Michael Clune, a literature professor and novelist, lamented to The Guardian that many students are now “incapable of reading and analyzing, synthesizing data, all kinds of skills.” Clune’s school, Ohio State University, recently required all students to enroll in “AI fluency” courses “across every major,” ostensibly to prepare them for a world that is dominated by the tech.
Clune was critical of the push. “No one knows what that means,” he told newspaper. “In my case, as a literature professor, these tools actually seem to mitigate against the educational goals I have for my students.”
OSU may be the most egregious example of capitulating to the whims of Big Tech, but the AI industry has its tendrils all across education. Companies like OpenAI and Microsoft have poured tens of millions of dollars into teachers’ unions, providing training on how to use their AI systems. They’ve also partnered with numerous institutions to provide their students with free access to their AI tools. Duke University, after entering such a partnership with OpenAI, introduced its own AI tool called “DukeGPT.” Abroad, xAI founder Elon Musk partnered with the government of El Salvador to launch the “world’s first nationwide AI-powered education program” to provide his Grok chatbot to a million students across thousands of public schools.
“These companies are giving these technological tools away partly because they’re hoping to addict a generation of students,” Eric Hayot, a comparative literature professor at Penn State, told The Guardian. “This is part of every single class I teach now, talking to students about why I’m not using AI, why they shouldn’t use AI.”
But pedagogues aren’t taking this sitting down. Some are now using oral interrogations and requiring handwritten notebooks, they told the paper. AgainstAI, a faculty-run initiative that advises professors on how to work around AI use, recommends giving assignments like oral exams, requiring students to show pictures of their notes, and paper journals.
Some even dare to be optimistic. Several said they noticed more students pushing back or expressing more cynicism about AI tools. “I think the current crop of gen Z students are seeing that they are the guinea pigs in this giant social experiment,” Zhang said.
“There’s kind of defeatism, this idea that there’s no stopping technology and resistance is futile, everything will be crushed in its path,” Clune added. “That needs to change… We can decide that we want to be human.”
More on AI: New AI Agent Logs Directly Into College Platform Canvas to Do Your Homework for You
Facts Only
* Professors interviewed for The Guardian represent various humanities disciplines.
* Over a dozen professors participated in an interview with The Guardian.
* A study by Carnegie Mellon found a link between AI tool use and declining critical thinking skills.
* ChatGPT use has been linked to memory loss, procrastination, and academic performance issues.
* An MIT study using EEG scans revealed lower cognitive engagement in subjects using ChatGPT.
* Ohio State University is requiring all students to take “AI fluency” courses.
* OpenAI and Microsoft are investing tens of millions of dollars in educational initiatives.
* Duke University partnered with OpenAI to introduce its own AI tool, “DukeGPT”.
* Elon Musk’s xAI partnered with El Salvador to launch a nationwide AI education program using Grok.
* AgainstAI recommends oral exams and paper journals to combat AI use.
* The timeline of key research findings includes a Carnegie Mellon study published in early 2025.
Executive Summary
Full Take
The article presents a deeply concerning, albeit largely circumstantial, narrative about the potential erosion of human intellect facilitated by the rapid adoption of AI in education. The STEELMAN of this narrative centers on the anxieties of academics—specifically those in the humanities—who perceive a fundamental disruption to established pedagogical models and, more profoundly, to the nature of human thought itself. The core concern isn’t simply cheating, but the subtle yet potentially devastating effect of outsourcing cognitive tasks to AI, as evidenced by the declining critical thinking skills observed in the Carnegie Mellon study. This isn’t just about students passively accepting answers; the MIT EEG research suggests a genuine reduction in *engagement* with the material. The subsequent actions – the “AI fluency” courses at OSU, the varied pedagogical responses – reveal a reactive rather than proactive approach, suggesting a recognition of a problem already deeply entrenched.
The PATTERN SCAN reveals a classic “motte-and-bailey” maneuver: the initial concern isn't about AI *per se*, but about the *consequences* of a particular mode of interaction – over-reliance, delegation of thought. The narrative skillfully employs a degree of ambiguity, framing the issue as existential (“What is it doing to us as a species?”) to amplify the emotional resonance. The industry’s intervention – the massive investments and partnerships – strengthens the suspicion of a deliberate strategy, tapping into a potential “addiction” and a fundamentally different mode of learning. It’s a complex, and possibly manipulative, pattern—a coordinated “systemic” attempt to reshape human cognition via a technological lever.
Root Cause: This narrative rests on a fundamental assumption – that human intelligence and cognition are inherently valuable and require active, sustained engagement. It echoes historical anxieties about technology’s potential to diminish human capabilities, from the Luddites’ fear of mechanization to contemporary concerns about the impact of social media. The IMPLICATIONS are profound: a future where critical thinking is a skill in decline, where agency is eroded, and where individuals become passive consumers of information curated by algorithms. The BRIDGE QUESTIONS are: Are we truly prepared for a world where knowledge is readily available but genuine understanding is elusive? And what ethical responsibilities do tech companies have in shaping the future of human cognition?
Patterns detected: ARC-0024 Ambiguity, ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey.
Sentinel — Likely Human
This article presents a largely human-written account of concerns regarding AI's impact on education, relying on reported observations and a variety of cited studies. While the reliance on expert opinions and a balanced presentation raises a moderate level of concern regarding potential AI assistance in its creation.