As the use of generative AI in education continues to grow, much of the conversation has focused on high-profile tools like ChatGPT and Claude. But in his recent blog, Writing Assistants and the AI Wasteland, Jacob Pleasants shines a light on a quieter but potentially more disruptive force in our classrooms: the AI writing assistant. Unlike chatbots that generate entire responses from scratch, writing assistants such as Grammarly and similar tools offer an “assistive” approach, suggesting spelling, grammar, phrasing, and even restructuring of student work. This level of assistance may seem helpful and relatively benign. However, Pleasants warns of a more insidious effect, one that he describes as leading students—and their teachers—into an “AI wasteland.” He argues that these tools create writing that’s increasingly machine-like, predictable, and ultimately devoid of true originality.
I want to delve into Pleasants’s perspective because, as an educator with a technoskeptical lens, I believe we need to take a closer look at the impact these tools have on student learning and development. How much of our students’ authentic voice, creativity, and critical thinking are we sacrificing in exchange for AI’s convenience and efficiency? And what does it mean for the future of education if we don’t actively monitor and question this creeping dependence on AI?
The Subtle Shift from Assistance to Authorship
One of Pleasants’s central points concerns the shifting role of writing assistants in classrooms. Initially, these tools offered basic editorial support, correcting spelling errors or suggesting alternative phrasing. This level of assistance allowed students to refine their work without losing ownership of their words. But in recent years, these tools have expanded their functionality, becoming increasingly sophisticated and capable of handling complex writing tasks. Now, AI writing assistants don’t just correct errors; they reorganize sentences, offer alternative phrasing, and in some cases, even provide citation suggestions and outlines for essays. What was once a proofreading tool now verges on a co-author role, quietly challenging traditional notions of authorship and blurring the line between “support” and “creation.”
From a technoskeptical viewpoint, this transformation poses serious questions about the integrity of student work. Are students truly learning to write if an AI handles significant portions of their phrasing and structure? How can they develop the skills to express themselves authentically when AI-driven norms subtly shape their prose? Pleasants calls this shift a descent into an “AI wasteland” because it erodes the unique, creative human aspects of writing, turning each assignment into something closer to machine-generated text.
The Homogenization of Student Voice
A consequence of AI-driven “helpfulness” lies in how it standardizes writing style. As Pleasants notes, AI-generated text tends to conform to a specific, formulaic structure that prioritizes clarity and efficiency over creativity. When students use AI writing assistants, their work often begins to mimic the machine’s style, adopting a robotic tone and a uniform structure. For educators, this machine-like quality in student writing has become increasingly easy to spot, with bulleted lists and summary paragraphs that read like they were generated by a bot.
This homogenization raises concerns beyond mechanics. Writing is not just a skill; it’s a form of self-expression, a way for students to explore and develop their voices. As students conform to AI’s vision of “good writing,” we risk losing the diversity and individuality that make each student’s perspective unique. For technoskeptics, this trend points to a broader issue: AI tools like writing assistants subtly impose linguistic norms that may not align with the values or cultural backgrounds of every student. By prioritizing a particular style of “correctness,” these tools inadvertently promote a uniformity that limits students’ ability to express their unique identities and experiences.
Navigating the AI Wasteland: Preserving Human Elements in Education
From my perspective, Pleasants’s blog underscores an urgent need to redefine our relationship with AI in the classroom. If we don’t establish clear boundaries and critical guidelines, we risk drifting further into a landscape where students rely on AI to the detriment of their own cognitive and creative development. The “AI wasteland” represents more than a mechanical degradation of writing; it symbolizes a fundamental shift in the learning process itself. This shift doesn’t happen in a vacuum—it shapes our students’ self-perceptions and their understanding of what it means to create.
As educational leaders and technoskeptics, we should advocate for a balanced approach that values both the benefits of technology and the importance of preserving human agency in education. Here are a few principles that can guide this balanced approach:
Critical Use Over Blind Adoption
Educators should encourage students to use AI tools thoughtfully, understanding both their advantages and limitations. Writing assistants can be helpful when students use them to check for minor errors or identify areas for improvement. However, we should discourage an overreliance on AI for drafting or structuring ideas. By framing AI tools as resources, not replacements for thinking, we empower students to retain ownership of their work.Focus on Voice and Authenticity
Assignments that prioritize personal voice and creative thinking help counteract the homogenizing effects of AI. Educators can design tasks that require self-reflection, unique viewpoints, or storytelling elements that go beyond AI’s capacity to “assist.” By emphasizing originality and encouraging diverse forms of expression, we can create a classroom culture where authenticity remains a core value.Transparent Policies on AI Usage
Schools should consider establishing policies that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI in student work. These policies could clarify the line between “assistance” and “authorship” and help students understand when AI tools enhance learning versus when they undermine it. Educators, students, and parents all benefit from clear expectations on the role of AI in assignments.
In an era of rapid technological advancement, the “AI wasteland” warns us to proceed thoughtfully. AI writing assistants may not mark the end of education as we know it, but they undeniably influence the learning experience in subtle and significant ways. By critically examining our relationship with these tools, we can ensure that AI supports rather than supplants the deeply human aspects of learning—creativity, curiosity, and the authentic expression of ideas. We owe it to our students to prepare them not just to use technology but to question it, shaping a future where they remain authors of their own stories.
Citation for Reference:
Pleasants, J. (2023, September 2). Writing assistants and the AI wasteland. Civics of Technology. https://www.civicsoftechnology.org/blog/looking-toward-the-future-of-education-chatting-with-the-silver-linings-of-learning-pod-s2k55