‘I wish I could push ChatGPT off a cliff’: professors scramble to save critical thinking in an age of AI | AI (artificial intelligence)

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) in higher education is causing a seismic shift, particularly in the humanities, where professors are grappling with how to teach critical thinking and creativity in an age where machines can generate essays, analyze data, and even mimic human expression. Lea Pao, a literature professor at Stanford University, has taken a unique approach: she’s asking her students to engage in offline, embodied learning experiences, like memorizing poems, performing recitations, and visiting museums to observe art in person. Her goal is to reconnect students with the tactile, human aspects of learning and to steer them away from relying on AI to do the intellectual heavy lifting.

However, Pao’s efforts highlight a broader challenge facing educators across the humanities. AI’s ability to process vast amounts of information and generate sophisticated outputs has left many professors feeling like they’re fighting a losing battle. Students are increasingly turning to AI tools like ChatGPT to complete assignments, often without fully engaging with the material. This has led to a crisis of confidence among educators, who fear that AI is undermining the very skills they are tasked with cultivating: critical thinking, creativity, and the ability to synthesize complex ideas.

The tension is particularly acute in the humanities, where the value of education is often tied to the development of human intelligence and the cultivation of a well-rounded, thoughtful individual. Professors like Dora Zhang at the University of California, Berkeley, argue that AI is not just a tool but a threat to the essence of what it means to be human. “What is it doing to us as a species?” Zhang asks, echoing a sentiment shared by many in her field.

The stakes are high. With the cost of higher education soaring and public confidence in universities waning, the humanities are under pressure to justify their relevance in a world increasingly dominated by technology. Some, like Ohio State University, are embracing AI, requiring freshmen to take classes in generative AI and positioning themselves as “AI-fluent” institutions. Others, like Pao and Zhang, are pushing back, advocating for a more traditional, human-centered approach to education.

The debate over AI in education is not just about academic integrity or cheating; it’s about the future of higher education itself. Will universities become factories for producing AI-dependent graduates, or will they remain bastions of critical thought and human creativity? The answer, it seems, will depend on how educators, students, and institutions navigate this transformative moment.

As the technology continues to evolve, professors are finding creative ways to adapt. Some are incorporating AI into their teaching, using it as a tool to enhance learning rather than replace it. Others are doubling down on traditional methods, emphasizing the irreplaceable value of human interaction, critical analysis, and creative expression. The challenge, as many see it, is to strike a balance between embracing the benefits of AI and preserving the uniquely human aspects of education.

In the end, the humanities may be facing an existential crisis, but they are also at the forefront of a broader conversation about what it means to be human in an age of machines. As Pao puts it, “You plant seeds and you hope.” The hope is that, in the long run, students will emerge not just as skilled professionals but as thoughtful, engaged human beings capable of navigating a complex world.

Tags: AI in education, humanities crisis, critical thinking, creativity, Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, Ohio State University, artificial intelligence, higher education, embodied learning, academic integrity, technology in the classroom, human-centered education, generative AI, intellectual development, cultural divide, technofeudalism, analog journals, oral exams, AI detection, academic unions, Against AI, assignment ideas, photographic evidence, transparency statements, class participation, handwritten notebooks, oral interrogations, tech companies, addictive technology, environmental concerns, activism, data centers, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Michigan, pushback, human qualities, existential crisis, well-rounded individuals, critical analysis, creative expression, balance, uniquely human, transformative moment, thoughtful human beings, complex world.

Viral Phrases:

• “AI-proof anything”
• “There’s no AI-proof anything”
• “What is it doing to us as a species?”
• “Self-lobotomize”
• “Destroy humanities jobs”
• “Studying the humanities is going to be more important than ever”
• “Conversation between two robots”
• “Soulless form of vocational training”
• “We can decide that we want to be human”
• “You plant seeds and you hope”

,