A university teaching assistant is confronting a widespread dilemma: students increasingly turning to artificial intelligence for coursework. The assistant, who leads discussion sections for large humanities classes and grades student writing, finds AI-generated text so common that rigorously enforcing academic integrity policies would require numerous accusations, many potentially false positives.
The core of the issue lies in differing values. While the teaching assistant believes in the intrinsic value of a humanities education, many stressed students prioritize practical outcomes and view AI as an efficient tool for completing assignments. This utilitarian perspective, where the goal is simply to get from point A to point B, is challenged by the traditional aims of humanities studies.
Rethinking the Purpose of Humanities Education
Traditionally, humanities departments justified their existence by their ability to produce interpretations, criticism, and creative works. However, this perspective, often driven by the neoliberalization of universities, shifts the focus from the student's personal development to the output of their work. A more foundational view, as articulated by philosopher Megan Fritts, posits that the primary aim of humanities education is "the formation of human persons." This educational vision, rooted in Aristotelian philosophy, emphasizes the cultivation of virtues such as honesty, justice, and courage, contributing to a flourishing life rather than merely producing a marketable skill.
The advent of generative AI, the teaching assistant argues, highlights the shortcomings of a purely utilitarian approach to humanities education. Students, seeing AI's efficiency, question the need for the rigorous, often effortful, learning process traditionally associated with these fields. This challenges educators to re-evaluate and clearly articulate the enduring value of humanities studies.
Cultivating Practical Wisdom in the Age of AI
Aristotle's concept of "phronesis," or practical wisdom, is presented as a crucial virtue for students to develop. Practical wisdom involves more than simply applying rules; it requires discerning judgment in complex, dynamic situations, and adapting to new contexts. This skill is made even more relevant by the rapid pace of technological innovation, as students will constantly face choices about how to utilize emerging technologies.
Generative AI, by removing cognitive friction, threatens to short-circuit the development of this essential skill. The author likens cognitive friction to exercise for the mind, essential for building intellectual capacity. Without sufficient practice in reasoning and deliberation, students risk intellectual deskilling, becoming less capable of independent thought and judgment. Philosopher of technology Shannon Vallor notes that practical wisdom, like other virtues, is built through practice. "We need a lot of cognitive exercise in order to develop practical wisdom and retain it," she stated, warning that cognitive automation could deprive individuals of these opportunities.
Integrating AI and Adding Friction
Instead of a strict "no AI" policy, the proposed approach involves honesty with students about the benefits of humanities education and why uncritical AI use undermines their development. One suggested method is to offer students a choice: complete an assignment with AI assistance or without. If AI is used, students would be required to submit a reflection piece detailing their choices and how AI impacted their learning process. This reflection would encourage the very reasoning and deliberative skills they might have sought to avoid.
For teaching assistants with limited agency, engaging students in discussions and debates about AI's role in education can be a valuable strategy. If institutional policies are strictly against AI use, and AI-generated work is suspected, reporting it may be necessary. However, when doubt exists, leniency might be considered for students who demonstrate thoughtful engagement in other aspects of the course, suggesting they have met the core educational aims.
The broader implication is that humanities departments face an existential challenge from generative AI. To survive, they must adapt and become more explicit about their mission, which ultimately centers on the cultivation of character and the development of well-rounded individuals capable of navigating an increasingly complex world.