The artificial intelligence (AI) boom, sparked by the arrival of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, took the world by storm. Within weeks, everyone was talking about it, trying it and had an opinion. It has transformed the way people live, work and think.
The trend has only accelerated. The AI snowball continues to roll, growing larger and more influential across nearly every sector.
Higher education has not been spared. Universities rushed to embrace this technological wave, eager to demonstrate that they are keeping up with the times. AI literacy is now presented as an essential skill, a key selling point to attract prospective students. As a result, institutions have been integrating AI tools across campus life, often enthusiastically and sometimes uncritically.
From teachers’ perspectives, this shift has created deep confusion. Most universities still struggle to establish clear policies on how students should utilize AI, particularly in the context of assessment. Amid the chaos, two dominant camps have emerged.
The first belongs to what might be called the “dinosaurs” of academia, or those who see technology as a threat and respond by retreating into the comfort of rigid, top-down instruction.
Their solution to the AI problem is simple: Ban it. Return to memorization, closed-book exams and handwritten essays. This nostalgic approach needs little attention. Most educators recognize that this method no longer prepares students for the real world.
The second camp is more complex and far more influential. These are the AI enthusiasts who say that since the technology is here to stay, the only reasonable path forward is to embrace it.
They talk about “AI literacy” and “critical engagement” with AI outputs. On paper, this sounds progressive. In practice, it rests on two flawed assumptions.
First, the proposed solutions are detached from academic reality. Suggestions such as conducting oral examinations after every paper or assignment might sound appealing, but they are unrealistic in large classes with overworked instructors and a lack of institutional support. They do little to address the real issue, which is students’ growing overreliance on AI tools for thinking, writing and comprehension.
Second, the idea of teaching students to “work with AI” or “critically assess AI output” assumes a level of intellectual maturity and skill that many undergraduates might not yet possess. Teaching ethics or digital literacy sounds good in principle, but these efforts have long proven to be ineffective when the foundations of reading, writing and reasoning are weak.
The truth is that AI is equally tempting to weak and strong students, offering an effortless shortcut that undermines genuine learning.
The result is an academic culture that has become obsessed with AI. Its supporters repeat the mantra that “those who know how to use AI will succeed in the future job market.” That might be true, but it misses a crucial point. Beyond the already established problems of AI, such as hallucinations, cognitive capacity decline, bias amplification and inconsistent outputs, one critical element remains missing from the discussion.
To use AI effectively, one must first possess the fundamental skills that enable critical evaluation: the ability to read carefully, write coherently, think analytically and understand the context. In our collective rush to embrace this amazing technology, we are sidelining precisely those skills that education was meant to cultivate.
The consequence is a generation that appears intelligent, knowledgeable and articulate, but that appearance is artificial.
There are no perfect solutions, but we need a frank and honest discussion about AI in education, one in which it is acceptable to call AI a threat.
Acknowledge its growing importance, yes, but also its capacity to profoundly and negatively reshape how future generations think, learn and operate.
Unless we restore balance and reaffirm what genuine learning means, we risk betraying our mission as educators.
Once the AI bubble bursts, we will realize that we have raised a generation brilliant at prompting machines, but helpless at responding to life.
Mor Sobol is an associate professor at Tamkang University’s Department of Diplomacy and International Relations.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
RSS