People keep saying that artificial intelligence is an educational boon. It takes care of the mundane tasks, thereby saving students time for deeper learning. Really?

In today’s Martin Center article, David Phillips takes a contrary view. He identifies two basic approaches to AI: alarmist and accommodationist, then writes:

As things currently stand, a strictly alarmist approach is untenable, a never-ending game of whack-a-mole that the instructor is destined to lose. On the other hand, rushing to embrace GenAI through an overly optimistic, accommodationist approach can lead only to unintended consequences that we can neither predict nor even imagine. At this time, the most prudent approach to take with students would seem to be this: Recognize that GenAI is a potentially beneficial tool but actively discourage students from using it by focusing on the very real costs of such reliance.

Costs? Yes — for one thing, the AI platforms are loaded with various “progressive” biases. Relying on them impedes a student from learning how to analyze the reliability of sources. Students who use AI become shallow writers and thinkers.

Read the whole thing.