Students should be allowed to use AI tools like ChatGPT to write essays, provided they clearly disclose their use. With transparency, AI can serve as an educational aid rather than a shortcut.

Just as calculators support learning in math without replacing fundamental understanding, AI can assist students in organizing their thoughts, improving grammar, and understanding complex topics. In an increasingly digital world, developing the ability to use such tools ethically is an important skill.

However, the key lies in how AI is used. If students rely entirely on AI to generate their essays without critical engagement, it undermines the purpose of education, which is to develop original thinking, writing, and analytical skills. To strike a balance, educational institutions should create clear guidelines that permit AI use for brainstorming, outlining, or editing, while ensuring that the core content and ideas remain the student’s own.

By teaching students responsible AI use and promoting transparency, schools can turn this technology into a tool for learning rather than a threat to academic integrity.

Gaurav H Tandon

I agree that AI tools like ChatGPT can be valuable educational aids when used transparently and ethically. Just as calculators enhance learning without replacing it, AI can support students in refining their work and grasping difficult concepts—provided they remain intellectually engaged.

The real challenge is ensuring students don’t outsource thinking. Clear guidelines from educators are essential, encouraging AI for support tasks like outlining or grammar checking, but requiring that ideas and arguments come from the students themselves. This way, we foster both digital literacy and academic integrity.

It depends on the topic and on the student. Generally speaking, no, but there are several situations when this fact is allowed!

Larisa Ileana Casangiu

That's a fair point. I agree—it really depends on the context. Disclosure is a good start, but the key issue is how AI is used: as a learning tool or a replacement for original thinking. If it supports critical engagement, it can be justified. But if it bypasses the learning process, it becomes problematic.