Why Artificial Intelligence Does More Harm Than Benefit

In both secondary schools and universities, Artificial Intelligence has been a hot topic. Academics/professors are attempting to find ways to integrate it into their syllabus and curriculum, noting the inevitability of stopping students from using it, while others are attempting to find new measures to stop the use of it. Whatever the case may be, there is no doubt that students across the globe are using it to either brainstorm, or more popularly, get out of doing the tedious labor of researching and critical thinking. Recent Artificial Intelligence polemists have tried to find the positives in using Artificial Intelligence; encouraging teachers and professors to utilize it in the classroom. The issue with this is the effect this will have on students’ ability to critically think and develop crucial researching skills.

One of the major issues that needs to be addressed is the inability for Artificial Intelligence to acknowledge more complex considerations such as biases and preconceptions. This is something that relates more to academics and undergraduate students than those at the secondary education level. As discussed in the American Historical Society’s Roundtable discussion on Artificial Intelligence, historians naturally have preconceptions about their arguments; this is the whole reason we begin to research a topic. While historians are trained to be able to look at different sources and point out biases as well as notice sources that contradict their argument that they will need to address, Artificial Intelligence does not have this skill. While the Artificial Intelligence can develop an argument using sources online, it is unable to address thoughts contrary to the argument at hand. In other words they’re made to predict, not make solid arguments. (O’Brien)

Also discussed in the roundtable was the fact that Artificial Intelligence can provide historians with the ability to look at a larger array of sources in a shorter amount of time. As historians, in an ideal world we can look at all the sources to provide a total history. However, we are also aware of the inability to do so because of the large amount of both primary and secondary sources; Artificial Intelligence provides historians with this tool. At a secondary and university level, Artificial Intelligence can be seen as a digital tool for students as discussed in UCF’s message to faculty. Students can use Artificial Intelligence as a digital tool to spark ideas, but not copy and paste word-for-word. Considering using Artificial Intelligence in this way sounds ideal, but is not realistic. In its inchoate stages, Artificial Intelligence has too many flaws to consider to be using it at an academic level.

The issue with using Artificial Intelligence as a digital tool for sparking ideas, is that students lose the ability to critically think. (Goodlad & Baker) There is no doubt they are able to get ideas for something to write about or something to consider from the Artificial Intelligence, however they then lack the tools and skills necessary to come up with these ideas; the writer is the vehicle that Artificial Intelligence is driving. Using Artificial Intelligence to replace critical thinking also ignores the fact that trained teachers and academics already have the tools necessary to do this researching, as well as the ability to teach it to those that do not know how. (Goodlad & Baker) One may make the argument that someone not studying an academic disciplinary has no need to be able to critically think; Artificial Intelligence eases their struggles for something that is lacking in their skillset. This is an aberration from realities of something bigger than merely academic writing: life.

There is a saying I use in my classroom “if you aren’t being challenged, you are not learning.” There is truth in this statement: doing the same banal activities or lessons you already know is no benefit to your skillset. Learning something you previously something you did not know before may be seen as a challenge, but ends with a new skillset and a new process of thinking for future learning opportunities. This also is an easy way out for students. In the harsh realities of life, there usually is not an easy way out and we must endure the challenges in front of us. If we are lacking in critical thinking, we are also lacking in common sense. Our brains will get accustom to having something else do the hard thinking for them, resulting in a lack of common sense. J. David Bolter uses the example of having a person learn Chinese versus a computer: the computer can solve the problem that is at hand as requested, but lacks the ability to theorize and quantify solid provable solutions. (Bolter)

In conclusion, I find that Artificial Intelligence does more damage than good, especially at the secondary and university level. It is possible that academics could use it for research into a much larger array of sources in a much quicker time, but in its inchoate phase, it is not ready to do so. Students need to learn their tools and skillsets through teachers and learning, not through artificially designed constructs to avoid lacking critical thinking. When presented, something can be directly in front of you and appear to be itself and solid like matter, or like a hallucination and seem real. However, as O’Brien mentions in his article, it only takes one key ingredient to change the result. (O’Brien) In this metaphor, the key ingredient would be the critically thinking, and the matter that is visible or a hallucination is a piece of work turned into a teacher.