nrc.nl
AI in Academic Writing: A Call for Prohibition
A university professor argues against the use of generative AI in student writing, citing its inability to produce original thought and its contribution to mediocrity.
- What is the core argument against using generative AI for academic writing?
- Generative AI, like ChatGPT, produces mediocre, predictable text by selecting the most probable word sequence. This prevents originality and creativity, essential for academic work. It lacks genuine understanding and cannot formulate novel ideas or perspectives.
- What are the long-term implications of allowing AI-generated text in academic settings?
- Accepting AI-generated text normalizes mediocrity and undermines the development of essential academic skills like critical thinking and original thought. It threatens the core purpose of higher education: fostering creativity and innovation, not simply reproducing existing knowledge.
- How does the author illustrate the limitations of generative AI in creating original content?
- The author uses examples like AI's inability to distinguish between similar political viewpoints on migration due to probabilistic word selection and Spotify's removal of AI-generated music due to its lack of originality. This highlights AI's reliance on existing patterns rather than creative generation.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the use of AI in academic writing as a detrimental practice, emphasizing the potential for homogenization and the suppression of originality. The author's strong stance against AI-generated text is presented from the outset and maintained throughout. The examples used, such as the comparison to Spotify's removal of AI-generated music, reinforce this negative framing. This framing might discourage exploring the potential benefits of AI as a writing tool, particularly for tasks like proofreading or code generation.
Language Bias
The author uses emotionally charged language to describe AI-generated text, referring to it as "saai, plat en voorspelbaar" (dull, flat, and predictable) and "zielloos en mainstream" (soulless and mainstream). These terms are subjective and carry negative connotations. More neutral alternatives might include terms like "unoriginal," "conventional," or "lacking in creativity." The repeated emphasis on AI's inability to produce original thought or creative work further reinforces this negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the limitations of AI in creative writing, neglecting potential benefits like improved grammar and style, or assistance with research tasks. While acknowledging AI's usefulness for tasks like coding and spell-checking, the article largely overlooks broader applications and the evolving nature of AI writing tools. The potential for AI to enhance learning rather than simply replace it is not explored.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy between AI-generated text and truly original, creative writing. It implies that using AI for any writing task automatically results in a mediocre, unoriginal product, neglecting the possibility of human-AI collaboration or the use of AI for specific writing support tasks. This oversimplification limits the discussion of more nuanced approaches to integrating AI in the writing process.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article directly addresses the use of AI in academic writing, arguing that it hinders the development of essential academic skills like original thought and creative writing, which are crucial for quality education. The author expresses concern that relying on AI for writing promotes mediocrity and undermines the learning process. The use of AI tools for generating texts is viewed as detrimental to the goal of fostering critical thinking and creativity in students, which are core aspects of quality education.