‘I hate what AI is doing to the minds and happiness of the young’: Katherine Rundell on the view from the classroom

Katherine Rundell, a fellow at Oxford and children's author, recently raised concerns about the integration of generative AI within classrooms. She argues that replacing student labor with large language models risks eroding the intellectual development of young people. Rundell notes that writing is a process of refining thought, not just a way to produce a final product. By relying on AI to complete assignments, students may lose the chance to build critical thinking skills and intellectual resilience.

Studies cited in her critique highlight a pattern of cognitive decline among users of AI tools. Research indicates that individuals who use these systems for problem-solving often struggle to complete tasks independently afterward. These findings suggest that the convenience of automated tools creates a dependency that may hinder a student's ability to engage with complex texts or form original arguments. The concern is that academic institutions are prioritizing speed and cost-efficiency over the fundamental goal of education, which is the training of the human mind.

Rundell points to a divergence in educational approaches globally. While some institutions push for more technology, others are moving in the opposite direction. Countries like Norway and Sweden have taken steps to restrict or reconsider the use of AI in early education. This suggests a growing recognition that early childhood learning requires a tactile, human-centered approach that cannot be replicated by software. Without this foundation, students may enter the professional world with shallow ideas and limited capacity for independent thought.

The broader implications for democracy and civil society are also significant. The spread of AI-generated content poses risks to how information is consumed and verified. If students are not trained to think critically, they may be less equipped to distinguish between genuine knowledge and synthetic output. The author encourages a return to traditional humanities as a form of intellectual resistance. By prioritizing reading and independent analysis, the next generation can retain the strength needed to address systemic injustices and maintain a functioning society.