Pluto Koehnen, opinions editor

With the sudden uptick in artificial intelligence (AI), school systems have had to sculpt themselves into a new standard. However, this transition has led some programs to require the use of AI, effectively singling out and cheating students who refuse to use the technology. While the adaptation can indicate a progressive school, requiring the use of said AI in coursework can signal lackluster academics. 

Requiring students to participate in the use of AI can enable them to rely on the tool, and in extension use the technology beyond guidelines. On paper, educating a new generation to use a tool to formulate an email sounds effective, but in reality it can snowball. Efficiency is addicting. Why would we write a five page paper when we could spend a night with peers? Why spend hours on a presentation when a machine can construct one in minutes? While the intention of introducing AI as a helpful tool may be good, the practice may not. Students could begin applying AI to finals, midterms or large presentations rather than digesting the information themselves. If a student isn’t properly consuming the courses they are paying for, not only are they harming themselves, they are harming their future employers or employees.

Furthermore, it’s hypocritical to educate students on biology, environmental science and nature conservation while simultaneously encouraging them to operate AI. AI’s current environmental footprint is anything but positive. Environmentally, AI’s consequences outweigh its potential positives, with water depletion, electronic waste and carbon emissions being the largest concerns. AI data centers are predominantly located in locations with profuse fossil fuels. These coal-fired and gas-fired power plants release copious amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when burned, which in turn contributes to global climate change. Furthermore, AI has furnished the proliferation of water scarcity. Bloomberg Technology reports that data centers have worsened the demand for water as coal and gas plants require large amounts of freshwater for cooling. It’s nonsensical to educate students on environmental concerns while pushing them to contribute to the issue.

A similar rationale can be applied to humanities majors. Students who are studying creativity, art, literature, philosophy and human history are now expected to abandon their human-aligned courses and careers for AI. AI assists to limit the human mind. It is a barricade in human-made work. Rather than going an extra step to rephrase a sentence, complete a painting or study a historical figure, AI is capable of replacing your mind. It’s human nature to rely on the easier, efficient path. Humans have spent centuries designing products to make our lives effortless: the wheel, the rifle, the highway. We thrive in adaptation. However, we are now conditioned to trade our values and passions for efficiency. So many of my friends and family are humanities majors. It’s insincere for any school to support humanities majors while simultaneously promoting a mindless tool that deteriorates the arts.

As a whole, AI has the potential to do great things. In the medical field, in the military, to help humans thrive, etc. However, requiring students to use such an invasive tool to simply manage their schedule or construct an email is demeaning. Students attend school to learn; forcing them to rely on AI only teaches that speed matters more than knowledge and growth.