Universities and AI: Tool or Partner?

Recent studies have pointed out instances where hundreds of students from various universities were found using generative artificial intell...

Recent studies have pointed out instances where hundreds of students from various universities were found using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to compose responses during remote midterm exams. Suggestions put forward include moving back to in-person exams or increasing oversight and consequences. Debates about prohibiting AI, improving monitoring technologies, and updating academic policies all stem from the same reasoning. Nevertheless, the matter brings up more profound and essential questions: How do educational institutions view AI?

Are universities today still seeing AI simply as a "tool" that enhances efficiency, similar to a calculator or word processor? If that's the case, the discussion would focus on whether to allow or ban its usage. However, if AI is seen as a "thinking partner" that extends human thinking, the conversation shifts—particularly because the main goal of university education is not efficiency but the development of critical thinking. The more important question then is: Is this ability to think being weakened by the ease provided by AI?

A research project conducted by the MIT Media Lab discovered that teams utilizing generative AI for writing created more refined sentences, yet exhibited reduced brain activity associated with cognition. Put differently, although their writing quality increased, their ability to think critically remained unchanged. A separate study indicated that groups supported by AI performed worse in critical reasoning tasks. When AI takes over the thinking process, people tend to stop thinking—this concept is referred to by psychologists as the "outsourcing of thought." This result is unavoidable when AI is viewed exclusively as a tool for enhancing productivity.

If AI is not considered a tool, then what does it represent? A change in perspective is necessary. One possibility is to see AI as a partner or collaborator. Within this approach, AI transforms from a machine carrying out instructions into a discussion partner that encourages critical thinking. For example, when a student asks AI, "Produce counterarguments for this statement," they must go through a process of evaluating and improving the AI's response. This is more about "collaborative discovery" rather than simply using a tool, as AI assists in pushing the boundaries of human cognition. Therefore, the real advantage in the age of AI is not about speed, but the depth of inquiry.

Top corporations have already started redefining the function of AI. They assess and train talent in a way that differs from conventional universities. Palantir, a leading data analysis company, established a 'merit-focused fellowship initiative' that does not require applicants to mention the university they attended, but instead challenges recent high school graduates to tackle real-life issues using AI. More interesting is the course structure: It prioritizes U.S. constitutional history, political theory, and ethics rather than coding. Founder Alex Karp stated that core thinking—judgment based on historical, political, and philosophical backgrounds—is more important than technical skills. These companies already perceive AI not as a tool for increasing efficiency but as a collaborator for enhancing judgment.

Colleges also need to reconsider their strategy regarding artificial intelligence. What is essential today is not just technical instruction on how to operate AI (as students will learn it themselves). The main focus should be on developing the skill to question, refine, and restructure answers generated by AI. "Literacy in the age of AI" isn't about reading data but understanding meanings that machines miss. Simply copying AI's results means handing over thinking; transforming it into something original means advancing thought. Therefore, the quicker AI offers answers, the more significant the question "why" becomes.

The South Korean government is striving to position itself as a "top-three AI leader," speeding up the purchase of GPUs, the creation of sovereign AI models, and the building of data centers. However, there appears to be limited focus on addressing the core societal issue: What exactly is AI? A genuine AI leader is not simply a country with more GPUs. It is also not a nation filled with users who exploit AI to the fullest while their ability to think critically declines. Rather, it is a country that nurtures citizens who view AI as a collaborator without delegating their thinking or accountability.

Colleges around the globe are progressing past merely sharing and combining information. They are now coordinating and blending human and machine intelligence—a transition from the age of knowledge integration to one of intelligent integration. Only learning that collaborates "with" artificial intelligence will equip students for what lies ahead.