Change is often understood as one of the most appropriate words to describe university. It is a new life, with new challenges and a taste of what it feels like to be independent. What I did not expect is just how much technological change could affect my day-to-day life. The rate at which social and technological change occurs has accelerated exponentially since the 1990s, and just when it seems like it couldn’t get any faster – boom, artificial intelligence enters the scene.

Generative AI has entered mainstream consciousness, with some seeing its emergence as a new and even existential technological revolution. Amidst all this, its presence in academia has become increasingly prominent. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, in a survey conducted polling 1,200 undergraduate students across the UK, 53% of students use generative AI to help them prepare for assessments. The university has numerous pages dedicated to ethical use of AI, tip-toeing around this understandably precarious issue. It has become such a worry for some that whole departments have reverted to a strict pen-and-paper timed examination policy, as a result of fears over AI.

My first impression of AI was admittedly a mixture of scepticism and frustration. In an environment already obsessed with efficiency, this seemed to me as yet another opportunity for our already-atrocious attention spans to be degraded even further (heavily aimed at TikTok here). Considering this, I deemed it sensible to stay stubborn. I was adamant not to use it under any circumstance, attempting to justify my stubbornness with a façade of righteousness. But at some point, time catches up. You become de-synchronised with this fast pace of life.

"My first impression of AI was admittedly a mixture of scepticism and frustration"

During my time at Cambridge, I have better understood what it means to understand (rather ironically). Learning is delicate and often repetitive, but to really understand the material you are working with? There is something very particular and tangible about that process. From day one, the message drilled into the heads of many students is the need to fully engage in the reading process – dig into the pages, put in the graft.

This, I believe, is where my gripe with AI got its texture. Corner-cutting AI turns this digging into dusting. How are we meant to understand the complexity of the information we absorb without putting in the work? There is undoubtedly value in putting in this extra effort. People’s inclination towards instrumental efficiency often takes away from the quality of the work we produce.

However, after a year of contemplation, I have realised it is not as simple as I initially thought. A black-and-white conclusion leaves us with very little to work with. In an age characterised by the urgency of change, a plain rejection or a blind acceptance of AI leaves us unable to best optimise what is coming.

These waves of change have already come before us and will continue to come at various stages of our lives. An academic traditionalist may have rejected the use of e-documents on the premise that information absorption comes more authentically from a hard copy. This did not stop change. So, our role within this wave of change is adaption.

"a plain rejection or a blind acceptance of AI leaves us unable to best optimise what is coming"

Generative AI is proving itself to be an educational asset beyond just corner-cutting. Its use in educational accessibility to allow personalised learning for neurodivergent individuals has increasingly been seen to open doors for many. Whether this be through speech-to-text, text-to-speech or prompting large language models (LLMs) to ‘fix my email’, barriers to education are easier to overcome. Coming from a family that has experienced how impactful dyslexia can be for communication and information processing, seeing the lives of those around you improve with the help of these technologies showed me its value.

At the core of our response to change, the values we must hold tightest are still authenticity and originality. AI should not just be a tool to enhance efficiency, or to simply ‘get more done’. We should value instead its ability to widen our imaginations, to create a better space for creativity and innovation, where authenticity and originality can still be prioritised. As a former sceptic myself, the very reason for my apprehension has convinced me that such a change can be positive.

Change is scary, but this is exactly the reason we should embrace it. If we keep our eyes fixed on maintaining and nurturing creativity when we use AI, it can be a force for good.