Regarding your report (UK universities warned to 'stress-test' assessments as 92% of students use AI, 26 February), for centuries universities have seen themselves as repositories of knowledge and the truth. This began breaking down when experts were no longer valued, critical thinking undermined and public discourse increasingly polarised.
In this world, traditional sources of knowledge have been increasingly rejected. Books, journal articles and old media are challenged by developments in information presentation and retrieval, most notably through apps and social media. It has led to the "Tinderfication" of knowledge.
Curated reading lists, for example, which academics spend time on researching, highlighting key thinkers and writings, are often overlooked by students in favour of a Google search. If a student does not like what they read, they can simply swipe left. Algorithms can then send students in unexpected directions, often diverting them away from academic rigour to non-academic resources.
It is important that students have access to learning materials 24/7. But does knowledge become another convenience food? It is available at the touch of a button online, is effectively delivered to your door and there are so many outlets to choose from. There might be quantity, but not necessarily quality: AI is the ultimate convenience food.
This raises fundamental questions about not just what we mean by knowledge, but also what the role of education, and academics, will be in the future. I can appreciate the benefits of AI in the sciences, economics or mathematics, where facts are often unquestionable, but what about the humanities and social sciences, where much is contestable?
We are rapidly losing ground to profound societal changes that could have unimaginable consequences for universities if we do not respond quickly.
Prof Andrew Moran
London Metropolitan University
* As a university lecturer in the humanities, where essays remain a key means of assessment, I am not surprised to hear that there has been an explosive increase in the use of AI. It is aggressively promoted as a time-saving good by tech companies, and wider political discourse only reinforces this view without questioning AI's limitations and ethics.
While AI may be useful in several academic contexts - in writing basic reports and conducting initial research, for example - its use by students to write essays is indicative of the devaluing of humanities subjects and a misunderstanding of what original writing in disciplines such as history, literature and philosophy enables: critical thinking.