Where is artificial intelligence appropriately used, and where is it not? That’s one of the crucial questions now facing us.

In today’s Martin Center article, Professor Josh Herring presents his case that AI should not become a substitute for thinking.

Writing faces a new threat in 2026. AI has gotten better; it can generate wordcounts previously unthinkable. And, while it still hallucinates, generative AI can pull quotes, format footnotes, and write copy in a far more impressive way than it could just a year ago. University systems are rushing to integrate AI into all aspects of higher education: The Martin Center’s Shannon Watkins recently published an interview highlighting UNC-Chapel Hill’s approach. Thales College (my institution) illustrates a different path: We held a Faculty Roundtable on AI in education and then spent two months crafting an AI policy limiting its use to protect classroom integrity.

Writing faces a new threat in 2026. AI has gotten better; it can generate wordcounts previously unthinkable. And, while it still hallucinates, generative AI can pull quotes, format footnotes, and write copy in a far more impressive way than it could just a year ago. University systems are rushing to integrate AI into all aspects of higher education: The Martin Center’s Shannon Watkins recently published an interview highlighting UNC-Chapel Hill’s approach. Thales College (my institution) illustrates a different path: We held a Faculty Roundtable on AI in education and then spent two months crafting an AI policy limiting its use to protect classroom integrity.

Writing, Herring argues, is a personal expression of ideas. That should not be turned over to a machine. In writing a book review, for example, the reviewer could have AI churn out a review that would fill up the pages, but such a review would be a lie.

Read the whole thing.

© National Review