AI is undeniably becoming a prevalent and influential actor in society. As AI continues to develop, many call for its federal regulation. In response, the Trump administration has instead created the White House National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. This framework assumes a deregulatory approach, offering recommendations on how to approach AI without creating a federal law that regulates its use. As the framework is not backed by federal law, it has no way of being enforced, effectively putting the burden on individual institutions to regulate their individual use of AI.
To determine whether federal regulation of AI is necessary, it is important to first assess society’s perspective on its potential value. There is no doubt that AI is extremely convenient. Within seconds, it compiles information from thousands of sources and spits it out for our consumption. It is a thoughtless process, and while that provides convenience, its thoughtlessness is exactly the problem. AI has completely replaced an individual’s ability to think critically. For this reason, I believe there is an observable tradeoff between the convenience of AI and the consequences of its use. In response to this tradeoff, I propose restricting AI use to fields that deem its utilization absolutely necessary, like certain sectors of healthcare, for example, while avoiding it in instances where it is less necessary and typically used as a replacement for original thought, such as in academia.
Software initially meant to aid companies’ productivity and efficiency has become a personal tool for mundane tasks like creating a grocery list or summarizing an article. Instead of practicing and utilizing skills that we have learned in grammar school to assess the validity of an argument and source, many individuals do not hesitate to accept information that AI provides as fact. In fact, only half of adults are willing to question the validity of AI at any given point and deem it inaccurate. Using AI this way is a misuse. It is an acceptance of the low-hanging fruit, the information that is immediately available.
If we accept the validity of the tradeoff argument and agree that utilizing AI in this way is a misuse, we must then question how AI’s implications manifest in different environments. As a student, I have found it increasingly apparent that AI has already begun to infiltrate academia. As an NYU student, I am led to believe that most of my peers use AI for their assignments. If you are in the library, for example, and glance at the computer screens of your fellow peers, you are met with one of the millions of AI models. It is a sad irony that many students disregard the library itself as a data center for the convenience of a fabricated system.
While this alone suggests that many students have adopted AI as a tool to replace original thought, it would be presumptuous to say all students agree with this argument. As a student who predominantly studies politics, I can only testify to the detriment of AI within these spaces, though others may fiercely disagree. To reflect the diversity of students’ perspectives on AI, I have asked my classmates to share their views.
Upon discussing the impacts of AI on academia, my fellow peer said the following about what he has observed during his study of humanities:
“Writing and the ability to communicate are one of the defining traits of humanity. Sacrificing this sacred task to a corporate algorithm designed to generate as much money as possible is absolutely heinous. Using AI to drive cars or perform super advanced surgeries is one thing; using it to replace your capacity to think is quite another.” He goes on to say, “Some of my classmates are literally unable to write an essay without using AI.”
While he argues that AI may help in certain circumstances, it undermines the humanity of the writing process, suggesting that using AI handicaps students and keeps them from engaging authentically. Within the same discussion, another student countered this idea and expressed the following:
“In some cases, AI is used as a substitute for original thought; it is the institution’s duty to prevent this … Ideal AI use in school simulates a tutor for those who can’t afford it. Reviewing a student’s writing, finding argumentative evidence in assigned readings, or simply having the document read aloud all have a greater impact in improving a student’s learning.”
While the students differ on what they consider the “ideal use” of AI, they agree that some may abuse AI to replace originality. Because students can abuse AI, we must ask whether institutions can prevent its misuse or whether federal law would regulate it better. While it is too soon to say whether AI can be successfully regulated, it is still crucial to understand its current impact to gauge the severity of its implications for learning and broader society.
The Zeitgeist aims to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented are solely those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial board.
