I don’t need to tell you that generative AI is everywhere.
On Tuesdays, I attend a class that examines ruined sites of human ingenuity and creation, in which the professor encourages us to use AI as a means of speculation. Apparently, it’s too difficult to imagine the future without asking a robot for assistance.
Then I go to my workplace, where my boss reminds us of the importance of fostering authentic human connection, but tells us to ask ChatGPT for prompts that people on my team could’ve brainstormed in three minutes.
When I finally head back towards my dorm, I pass by a Davis Center bulletin board that strains my eyes with posters that are clearly AI-generated.
In all honesty, I am very surprised that GenAI has such a tangible presence at a school considered the second most liberal university in the country, according to a 2026 Niche ranking.
“For people and planet” is the University’s current brand positioning, clearly referencing a respect for both the human and natural worlds.
Despite this, I’ve attended countless lectures where the students around me casually mention using a website that uses about half a liter of water for a 100-word email, according to Environmental Health News.
It seems that even those who should be opposed to everything generative AI encompasses — its plagiarism, its misinformation and its erroneous environmental impact — have no shame about creating a ChatGPT account or filtering every word they type through a generic AI proofreader.
When I ask these people why they use GenAI, they often respond with one of two defenses:
“I’m busy and don’t have the time to do X, Y or Z.”
I’m also busy, yet somehow, instead of getting ChatGPT to churn out an inaccurate blurb on the reading, I manage to skim it myself before class or, at worst, look up a Sparknotes page.
The second excuse I hear is: “I don’t use it for much, really just for ___ and nothing else.”
I can excuse this slightly more than the first response.
What is considered the “bare minimum” for acceptable GenAI usage varies from person to person. While I am opposed to the technology in principle, I can accept that there are places for it that don’t completely override the practice of human creativity.
For instance, I know many people who study using AI-generated questions as part of their study sets. I believe anything that serves as a refresher of the class material is ultimately beneficial, but I’m skeptical of how “helpful” AI-assisted studying actually is.
By definition, GenAI tools like ChatGPT generate responses based on any and all information currently available online. For studying purposes, this could include sites like Britannica or Proquest, but could also include The Onion or FOX News — places notorious for either satire or outright misinformation.
While these types of people claim they only use GenAI as a “tool,” the most popular forms of it are hardly useful.
Every piece of writing from ChatGPT, Gemini or other GenAI “tools” is at best bland and flowery, and at worst feeds into dangerous misinformation and delusions.
For instance, “AI Psychosis” is a new term coined for the tendency of AI chatbots to encourage delusion and over-reliance on AI, according to Psychology Today.
I once had a teacher who informed us that he didn’t care whether we used AI in our writing, as long as he couldn’t tell it was AI.
While I can’t understand the first part of his stance, it goes to show that work reliant upon GenAI tools for its substance is inherently worse off, deserving the title of “slop.”
Image generation is its own beast entirely. While it thankfully seems to be a bit less common amongst students who are “too busy” — or too lazy — to do schoolwork entirely on their own, the justifications I have seen from users are an exercise in futility.
As an artist, it aggravates me to no end to see unending mindless slop “created” from the work of stolen and nonconsenting art, including that of iconic figures like Hayao Miyazaki, which Miyazaki himself called “an insult to life itself.”
I understand that not everyone feels they have the ability to create art on their own. I also understand that not everyone feels they have the time or economic standing to invest in that ability.
However, by continuously using GenAI as a crutch, even in something as innocuous as a single ChatGPT search, you’re refusing the possibility of gaining that ability.
OpenAI and its equivalents add nothing new to the equation. Everything that corporate tech bros sell to you could easily be found within a five-minute Google search, as soon as you skip past the mandatory AI overview.
Look, I’m no saint when it comes to shortcuts, especially in school. In my AP Environmental Science class, I’d often split-screen the unit Quizlet set with the online test while the teacher wasn’t looking. I hardly remember any material from that course.
The issue is when the shortcut becomes the default route. Instead of immediately opening up Quizlet when a test started, I could’ve spent the hours I procrastinated and lay in bed toward testing myself and actually studying the material.
The only thing you gain from GenAI is time; it’s a shortcut that saves an astonishing two minutes.
The thing with shortcuts, though, is that you don’t know how effective they are if you’ve never taken the longer route.
Instead of asking ChatGPT for studying prompts, ask your friends to quiz you. Instead of using a poorly generated AI poster for your advocacy group, research what you’re advocating for and commission an artist to design a flyer.
Generative AI companies want you to forget these are options. They want you to default to using open-source slop. Don’t let them.
