There’s sort of an unspoken rule in academia: If it feels too easy, then it’s probably wrong.
Using artificial intelligence (AI), with its ability to summarize complex readings in mere seconds, often feels like taking an intellectual shortcut that betrays the rigor of academic study. Many professors and students view AI with skepticism, wary it will erode rather than enhance our critical thinking skills. But as coursework becomes more demanding, readings grow denser and schedules keep getting filled, we should seriously reconsider our dismissal of AI.
Academic writing is rarely designed for clarity. Readings are often hundreds of pages long, with their arguments woven into prose that is hard to understand, riddled with outdated jargon and labyrinthian sentences. At the same time, the constraints on our time are mounting. Between classes, countless extracurricular meetings, coffee chats, part-time job obligations and moments of socializing and self-care, time is a scarce resource. In this reality, learning how to work smarter — not just harder — is crucial.
By quickly summarizing dense academic materials, distilling key points and highlighting important examples in the text, AI tools such as generative chatbots allow us to more efficiently grasp a text’s core ideas. Instead of struggling through a convoluted argument before even reaching its main claim, AI can help us locate the thesis and supporting points upfront. Consequently, we can spend more time engaging with the material meaningfully rather than getting lost in its structure.
One study from Kent State University found that students who incorporated AI tools into their learning routines saw a reduction in study hours while experiencing a measurable increase in their GPA. AI-assisted learning also encouraged better time management and provided real-time feedback, allowing students to refine their understanding of key concepts more efficiently. Another study from Nanjing University showed that AI tools increased students’ willingness for autonomous learning by boosting their confidence and motivation.
Instead of replacing critical thinking skills, AI has helped students approach their studies with greater independence and efficiency, leading to better performance outcomes and the development of positive habits.
Of course, AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution. While useful for breaking down factual and conceptual readings, it’s not a substitute for the interpretive work required in literature, philosophy or arts-related fields. An AI-generated summary can’t encapsulate the emotional depth, social critique or ambiguity of these human works. These forms of analysis still require our imagination and creativity. No two readers will perceive a novel’s themes in the same way, just as no two art critics will agree entirely on what makes a painting compelling. AI, no matter how sophisticated, neither possesses the subjective depth that allows us to engage emotionally with works nor provides the creative spark that allows us to explore beyond the words on the page.
Moreover, the technology itself is not infallible, as it sometimes generates misleading or incomplete summaries. Most generative chatbots rely on vast data sets available on the free internet to generate responses, which means they can occasionally misinterpret context or omit crucial details.
While these are valid concerns, they should not lead to the outright rejection of AI as a study aid. Instead, they highlight the importance of using these tools with a critical mindset and as a supplement rather than a replacement for traditional learning methods. We must find ways to integrate AI responsibly.
Universities already use AI for research, plagiarism detection and language assistance — why not also teach students how to use it as a study aid? Just as we learn to evaluate sources for credibility, we should also be taught to assess AI-generated content for accuracy, bias and limitations. This approach would cultivate a generation of learners who understand AI’s capabilities and constraints, instead of using it blindly.
Most importantly, we must break the taboo of discussing AI in the classroom. Many of us are already incorporating AI into our study habits, whether for summarizing texts, brainstorming ideas or refining our writing. However, without clear discussions on responsible AI usage, we may rely on it uninformed. Professors, for example, can model responsible AI usage by demonstrating how to fact-check chatbot-generated responses or how to use AI for preliminary or background research.
By receiving adequate AI literacy training, we can recognize the strengths and weaknesses of AI-generated material and understand that, while AI can synthesize large amounts of data efficiently, it can also reinforce biases and oversimplify complex arguments. This transparency would mitigate ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI and empower students and professors alike to use the technology as a tool rather than a crutch.
The question shouldn’t be whether AI belongs in academia, but how to use AI in a way that enhances our learning. Georgetown University needs to take the lead in shaping an AI-literate student body and set the standard for AI education in higher learning.
P.S.: If you read this article fully, see if you can distinguish which parts I wrote independently and which parts I wrote with assistance from AI tools. If you can’t, then I have proven my point.
Nhan Phan is a first-year in the College of Arts & Sciences
