With the rise of GenAI, I wanted to reflect on my own experiences using these tools. Among all the options available, I dare say that ChatGPT is one of the most popular. Personally, it is also the tool I use most frequently. I sometimes jokingly refer to it as ‘my best friend’ for work or academic purposes. I even ask personal things, such as how to word an email or what to cook for dinner. This unusual personalization also serves as a useful reminder: ChatGPT is not a person, but a powerful generative AI tool. Over the past few weeks, I have realized that the way I use it determines whether my thinking becomes sharper or softer.
I have heard stories about ChatGPT writing students’ theses or essays. I have also used it myself to summarize articles. The results were fast and flawless at first glance. However, I learned that entirely relying on these results can be risky. An example was a student in my project group during my bachelor’s who used ChatGPT for everything. He copied and pasted the results into our essay. This text did not have proper sources and was not always accurate, instead it was rather vague and reduced the quality of our work.
Another example was that I inserted a code with errors, and ChatGPT corrected it. This resulted in eliminating the error, but also not being able to gain an understanding of why it was there and how I could correct it myself. That moment made me realize the double-edged nature of GenAI: if I continue outsourcing the uncomfortable steps to ChatGPT, I could obtain the output but not the understanding behind it.
Therefore, I changed my attitude. Now, I treat ChatGPT as a question engine rather than a machine that answers. Instead of “write this”, I start with challenging my assumptions, for example. It comes down to asking for directions, redirections, questions, and feedback instead of direct answers. This way I still do the thinking while using ChatGPT to sharpen it.
If there is a single sentence that captures what I have learned, it is this: let AI accelerate your thinking, not replace it. Make sure your brain leaves every interaction a bit stronger than it arrived.
Hi Isabelle, great article! I had a similar experience in my bachelor as well. I definitely believe that the creative ability has diminished in students since Chat, sometimes i even have difficulty brainstorming without it.
academia currently relies on a model which tests students’ capabilities to recite and process knowledge, write summaries and reproduce arguments. I wonder if there are ways to change the way academia tests students, that positions AI as an accelerator rather than a replacement as you mention. maybe abandoning that model for live problem solving. so i cant help but wonder if maybe AI isnt the villain, but academia is for not adapting.