At that time, most students have probably heard of Recent article from New York Mag Ascending plagiarism in colleges. But there is a good chance that they did not meet him in a printed magazine or a library archive. More likely, it was through a brilliant screen – a phone, a laptop, an iPad – one of the many rectangles through which we now live not only information, but also education itself.
It is not only a question of cheating; This is how learning has become inseparable from the devices we use to access it. The conferences are disseminated, the manuals are rented digitally, the assignments are subject via portals and even an occasional conversation on the school occurs online. The classroom has not disappeared – it was just downloaded. And with this change comes a subtle remodeling of what education looks like: faster, more efficient, more fragmented, more transactional.
I do not blame students to turn to AI tools like Chatgpt. When each aspect of learning is publicized by technology, it is not surprising that we turned to the most powerful tools available. But we still have to ask: What does it mean anyway, thinking becomes something that we outsource? What happens when convenience becomes the highest intellectual value, or when education is quietly reshaped in a commodity manipulated by invisible hands? There is no unique answer. But in a system that rewards speed on depth and productivity rather than reflection, technology does not simply support learning – it begins to define it.
This brings me to a broader concern: the education system itself. The blame of technology alone for anti-intellectualism in America is short-sighted. During my three years at the University of Seattle, a single teacher seriously expressed the rise of artificial intelligence. By coincidence, or perhaps not, the same teacher also offers one of the most enriching learning experiences I have had. In their class, curiosity is encouraged, asking questions is rewarded and leaning on Chatgpt for shortcuts is almost impossible. What makes this environment work is not resistance to AI, but the creation of a space where significant learning has the priority on performative success.
Too often, students are forced to perform well on tests, quickly control the equipment and secure a diploma – sometimes without engaging deep with what they learn. This system rewards speed and understanding at the level of the surface on depth and critical thinking. So, can we really blame students for the use of the fastest tool available when the system itself prioritizes instant results? Universities that claim to fear AI often manage classrooms like mechanical factories, producing diplomas instead of cultivating minds. For me, this is the real danger.
For teachers, I ask: if you are concerned about students on the use of AI, then model reflected learning. Define clear directives. Build classrooms that promote dialogue, patience and independent thinking. Use your voice to challenge systems that reduce business transaction education.
For my comrades, my message is an encouragement, not a judgment. AI is not intrinsically bad in its entirety. Just as you would not use your phone to hack the school database (I hope), do not use AI to get around the reflection process that you are more than capable of doing by yourself. Use it to think about ideas, organize your thoughts or explore sources, but don’t let it replace your brain. Do not fall into the convenience trap simply because it is there. Do not feed in a system that benefits from your passivity and limits your intellectual potential.
More importantly, work with your peers and teachers to rethink what education should be. Recognize that the problem is not only the screen in your hand – this is the structure that leads you to reach it before thinking in a critical way. I promise you, there are huge advantages of
Take a book instead of sending a message via the chatgpt. If we want a future where knowledge stimulates instead of the transaction, we must demand a system that values learning for itself.
