Cases of rampant AI-assisted cheating have been reported across the United States. What’s at stake is not merely the loss of academic rigor or intellectual discipline but the erosion of our most basic cognitive fluency.

Leaving students to “their own devices," in this case, literally those of AI companies, deprives them of essential opportunities to develop linguistic mastery, and with it, their fundamental capacity for thought. Without that, they risk losing the ability to comprehend and navigate the world around them, warned Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Anastasia Berg, in an article published by The New York Times.
 
AI is not the first invention to unsettle our intellectual abilities. Long before the calculator, the smartphone, or ChatGPT, Plato warned that writing itself would erode memory. Literate humans, he argued, would “not use their memories.” He wasn’t entirely wrong, but few today would view that as a regrettable trade-off. Writing made possible the survival of Plato’s own dialogues for millennia. As with most technological leaps, the question is not whether there is a cost, but whether the benefit outweighs it.

What we stand to lose

As AI use has surged among students, its critics have focused on what it steals from us intellectually. “A.I. undermines the human value of attention,” poet Meghan O’Rourke wrote in a guest essay for The Times Opinion, “and the individuality that flows from that.”

Others lament the loss of “unique human expression,” “the slow deliberation of critical thinking,” and “the ability to write original and interesting sentences.” As a humanities scholar, Berg said she shares these concerns but believes the danger runs even deeper. Developing linguistic skill, the capacity to grasp complex ideas, trace nuanced arguments, form judgments, and communicate them clearly, is inseparable from the development of our ability to think, according to her.

Language as the root of thought

Related News

Gaza education system near total collapse, UN reports

Estonia eschews ban on phones in schools, moves into AI

Language is not merely another human skill; it is the medium through which cognition occurs. Philosophers may debate whether thinking can exist without language, but human experience leaves little doubt: we apprehend reality through linguistic structures. Yet no one is born with this capacity; it must be cultivated through sustained engagement with others and with texts. For centuries, immersion in the written word has been central to intellectual growth and cultural continuity, as per the piece.

In Berg's view, defenders of AI often distinguish between outright cheating and seemingly harmless uses like summarizing or outlining. But these “innocent” shortcuts may be the most corrosive. Summarizing a text, for instance, is not a mechanical act but a cognitive one: it demands understanding, discrimination, and synthesis.

When students outsource this task to machines, they lose the very exercise that builds comprehension. The damage, though quiet, is profound and cumulative, Berg argued.

The cost of cognitive erosion

Without regular practice in reading, analysis, and writing, young people may soon struggle to interpret news articles, navigate medical consent forms, or evaluate arguments, even ones like this.

Their conceptual range will shrink, and their grasp of the world will become blunted. This erosion of thought threatens not just intellect but democracy itself. A society of “subcognitive” citizens cannot meaningfully participate in the deliberations that shape collective life, as per the piece.

Even as the dangers grow clearer, some educators argue that AI’s integration into schools is inevitable. Others, like Princeton’s D. Graham Burnett, go further, contending that literacy itself is an outdated aberration. Beyond a few elite enclaves, he suggests, there will soon be little reason to expect students to read books. Teachers should instead encourage them to “do stuff” with short texts: “Sing them. Memorize them. Cut them up into little pieces and stick them on the walls.” This vision, however playful, carries an unmistakable implication: a return to a world where functional literacy is a privilege of the few.

A rebuttal and a choice

The writer expressed a strong objection to Dr. Burnett’s casual dismissal of most American college students as deserving an education more suited to young children. They argued that his assertions rested on a mistaken assumption, noting that many students are still capable of reading and engaging with lengthy texts — and are eager to do so.

The writer pointed to half of her own class as evidence, saying those students chose to read the assigned material rather than rely on AI tools. She added that none of her students, regardless of whether they tackled the difficult readings, would have benefited more from reducing their essays to decorative fragments.

Higher education, Berg maintains, must shape adults capable of independent, critical thought. That means ensuring students learn to read, think, and write for themselves. The solution is simpler than it seems: carve out tech-free spaces and encourage students to inhabit them. No new resources are required, only resolve. Many students still possess it. The question is whether their teachers do, the piece concluded.

Read next: Could AI extend lifespans while fueling despair and joblessness?