[originally posted on my substack]
I started this week sitting across from a long-time colleague, someone whose work I respect and whose judgment I trust. Let’s call him Eric. Eric is co-authoring something with a younger scholar, and he has been finding hallucinated references in the manuscript. He has, I think, tacitly accepted that AI was used in the writing. The references are the tell. He has not said so explicitly, but the evidence is sitting right there in the reference list.
What struck me about the conversation was not the hallucinations. Those are a real problem, and anyone using AI-assisted writing needs to know that. What struck me was that Eric is not using AI himself, which means his mental model of the technology is frozen at whatever he last heard about it. He does not know yet that frontier models (the current generation) are substantially less prone to fabricating citations than earlier versions. His experience of the technology is secondhand and dated, and that gap between perception and current reality is itself a kind of problem. The tool is a moving target, and the critique needs to move with it.
Later in the week, I had a completely different kind of conversation. Dave Fowler, a math education professor who retired a few years ago, shared with me the exchanges he has been having with ChatGPT about the nature of theories. Dave is curious, playful even about what this thing is and what it can do.
He shared some of the thinking he was doing with and about AI. We smirked together at the turns of phrase the model deployed in those conversations, including things like “You’re drawing a very precise and interesting analogy, Dave.” which my brain heard in the voice of HAL 9000. There is something both charming and slightly unnerving about that sentence. It flatters, it redirects, it sounds like a thoughtful interlocutor. Is it? Is it not? Dave was not sure, and neither was I, and that wondering felt like the right place to be.
I am still turning that conversation over in my head. What Dave is modeling is something I think we are not talking about enough in education: what it looks like to approach AI with curiosity rather than with a verdict already in hand. He retired, he has no institutional pressure either way, and for $20 a month he is just... exploring. There is something intellectually honest about that.
Meanwhile, the news cycle this week offered its own jagged edges.
A winner of the 2026 Commonwealth Short Story Prize has been accused of submitting an AI-generated story, and the situation quickly became a full-blown literary scandal. The accusations were amplified when Pangram Labs ran every Commonwealth Prize winner back to 2012 through their detection tool and found strong signals of AI-generated text in multiple entries, including the 2025 overall winner. The literary world, predictably, is having a moment.
And then Barnes & Noble CEO James Daunt appeared on the Today show and said he had no problem stocking AI-written books, as long as they were clearly labeled and not misrepresenting themselves. Cue the boycott calls. Cue the “all generative AI is ripping off someone else” counter-arguments on social media. Daunt has since clarified, repeatedly, that Barnes & Noble does not knowingly sell AI-generated books and takes active measures to exclude them. The clarification landed with about as much impact as you would expect, which is to say, not much. The outrage had already found its shape.
These two stories (the prize and the bookstore) are related. Both are really about thresholds. At what point does AI-assisted become AI-generated? Who gets to decide? What is the meaningful distinction between a human writer who uses AI as a tool and one who uses it as a ghostwriter? I do not have clean answers. What I am sure of is that any calls for no AI will just feed into shadow AI use.
On a more personal note: I have been noticing that when I write text on my own, without AI assistance, Grammarly flags it as AI-generated. (I still have a Grammarly subscription, though the controversy around the company has me reconsidering that). The flag itself made me stop and think. Am I absorbing AI patterns from all this use? Or is this a simpler and more uncomfortable explanation: that AI was trained on enormous quantities of mediocre writing (including mine), and is now reflecting the patterns of mediocre writing back at us, and Grammarly is simply recognizing them? I am a mediocre writer, so am I no better than AI?
I find this genuinely interesting and only slightly humbling.
Social media, that well-known venue for nuanced and measured discourse, has been full this week of a particular kind of certainty. The message, in various forms, is this: In five years you will look back and realize that AI in schools was a terrible mistake.
I do not know how to evaluate that claim, because I do not think anyone can know it. We are, as a society on the verge of something, but the outcomes are unclear. The people making this prediction with the most confidence tend to be the ones least encumbered by curiosity or evidence. As Ted Lasso misquoted “Be curious, not judgmental.” I think of Dave Fowler, sitting with his ChatGPT transcripts, genuinely wondering, and then I think of the social media certainty crowd, the UnDaves. The UnDave has an opinion. The UnDave does not let curiosity or facts complicate the opinion. The UnDave is very confident about what five years from now will look like.
I am not an UnDave. I hope I never become one. Here is where I am, for this week at least.
I love the exploration. I love what AI does for the scope and scale of what I can get done. And more than either of those things, I love that GenAI keeps opening doors to new questions, questions I would not have thought to ask, problems I would not have noticed, conversations like the one with Dave that I will be thinking about for weeks.
On schools specifically: I have said this before, and I will say it again. Caution is warranted. We do not have enough evidence yet about long-term impacts on learning, on writing development, and on productive struggle that builds capacity. Those concerns are legitimate and deserve to be taken seriously.
But on the other side of that, we must teach students about AI, what it is, how it works, and how it is changing the world they are growing up in. Not doing so is irresponsible. These students are going to live in a world shaped by this technology, whether we prepare them for it or not. Much like sex ed, if we don’t teach about it in schools, they will learn it elsewhere, with potential negative consequences.
I understand the desire to put the djinni back in the bottle. But we learned from the nuclear age that you cannot undo technologies. We must work as a society to reckon with the age of AI, and part of that is education.
Eric’s colleague used AI and did not know how to use it well. Dave used AI and understood enough to find the conversation genuinely interesting. The difference is not access. The difference is curiosity and intellectual engagement.
That is what education is (or at least should be).
