Rose Bialk/The Mossy Log
A wise woman once said: “Career-ready skills will help you land a job, but only mastering the most human skills will prepare you to change the world.” Would it shock you to know that this line comes from an opinion article written by Lewis & Clark President Robin Holmes-Sullivan this January? After attending a community dialogue on the use of generative AI on our campus, I came away with the impression that most students here are largely apprehensive about the use of this technology. However, it seems that in recent weeks, the administrators at our institution have only become more AI friendly, a change that seems completely out of line with students’ values. The uproar over the use of generative AI to create promotional images for the rollout of the new mascot emphasizes this fact. Now more than ever, we should question why LC seems to be pushing for the integration of AI into our systems with institutions like the AI advisory committee (a committee that hopes to determine how the school will move forward with AI) and the potential introduction of an AI studies minor.
The AI advisory committee states that its mission is to foster “grassroots exploration, adoption, and innovation of generative AI tools across the college.” This statement in and of itself seems to be contradictory. There is nothing grassroots about tools sponsored by billion-dollar corporations and tech CEOs. There is no innovation in adopting tools that do our work for us. To me, it seems cut and dry: this institution has existed for 159 years, and thousands of students have graced its halls. So many alumni have graduated and gone on to do gratifying work without the use of generative AI. What makes today different?
From the offset, I consider it important to make it clear how opposed I am to the use of any and all generative AI tools. Though the main generative AI tools on the public stage are large language models (LLM) and image generators, which use a large dataset to output the most statistically appropriate answer, there are similar concerns regarding energy use and decreased problem-solving skills with other tools that fall under this category. For the purposes of this argument, I tend to use the term “generative AI” as a catchall for tools that seek to output some sort of “creative” product based on data it is fed. As a person who values human creativity and the environment, it is clear to me that tools like ChatGPT and Nano Banana Pro are net-negatives, not only for college students, but also for human society at large. This may seem like a harsh claim, but it only takes a bit of digging to discover the potential that AI tools have to do tangible harm to both people and the world.
My opposition to generative AI tools boils down to four main points: the environmental impact of AI use, the use of AI tools by sexual predators, the breakdown of critical thinking due to overuse of AI tools and the growing adverse effects of AI chatbots on young people’s mental health.
I am sure none of these points come as a surprise. News articles with titles such as “Is AI Ruining Your Kid’s Critical Thinking?” and “People Are Losing Loved Ones to AI-Fueled Spiritual Fantasies” are not at all uncommon as of late. But it is worth diving into the stories behind the headlines to understand the harm that generative AI can do in our own communities. There is a tangible human impact when it comes to this new technology, and there are faces and names behind the horror stories on the news.
This is a case where statistics do show the human impact of this technology. As of writing this article, 14 deaths, including suicides, have been linked to the use of chatbots. The reasoning behind this is not surprising. Generative AI tools LLMs of any kind are ultimately products that rely on keeping users interacting with them on a regular basis. In order to do so, these programs will say whatever the user wants to hear. Not only does this have potential to harm users’ mental health, but there is also the possibility for this technology to be used by predators. Three days after Holmes-Sullivan’s opinion piece was published, the United Nations published a statement warning of the potential for sexual predators to use generative AI tools to extort and intimidate victims. Alongside this, psychologists have warned that the overuse of generative AI tools can weaken critical analysis and reasoning skills. A lack of foresight has led to a landscape where AI tools are expected to guzzle up to 33 billion gallons of water annually in the next two years. With these most basic arguments laid out, it is clear to me that AI poses a direct threat to various vulnerable communities.
In light of these facts, I am of the opinion that there is absolutely no way to use generative AI tools ethically. If we open ourselves up to casual use of these tools, we not only surrender our data and work to huge corporations that treat us like products, but we steal resources from the planet and from the artists whose works are used to feed LLMs. Not only that, but we run the risk of sharing servers with people who want to use this technology to do harm to vulnerable populations.
My sincere belief is that AI is an economic bubble, akin to the housing bubble of the early 2000s and the dot-com bubble of the 1990s. To refresh on economic theory, a bubble occurs when investors are excited by the prospect of a new technology and overinflate its value. When it becomes evident that the technology has been overhyped, it bursts and economic disaster ensues. In a video from December 2025, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich warned that letting this kind of technology dictate the future will jeopardize our potential.
Ultimately, I agree with the argument Holmes-Sullivan makes in her article. In a world where technologies that have the potential to replace human creativity are being valued, and colleges are orienting their programs towards career preparation rather than community impact, there is a need to be cautious. If this school wants to move forward with the spirit of innovation and ethical exploration that it prides itself on, there is no room for shortcuts and easy ways out. Generative AI will never be the way to the bright new world that our students are aiming to lead.
About the Author
