In recent discussions surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in writing, educators and writers emphasize the enduring importance of human creativity and critical engagement. Two letters submitted to a Massachusetts publication highlight differing perspectives on the integration of AI tools within the literary and academic landscape.

Stuart Gallant, a resident of Belmont, acknowledged the potential benefits of AI technologies and large language models as argued by Richard Hanania in an earlier column advocating their use. However, Gallant stressed that the essence of writing remains a deeply human endeavor. Describing his own writing process—often involving initial responses, reflection over several days, and multiple drafts—he underscored the nuanced imperfections and choices that characterize human-authored texts. Gallant compared this to the deliberate stylistic decisions seen in classical art, suggesting that such idiosyncrasies reveal the writer’s humanity, something unlikely to be authentically replicated by AI without explicit prompts.

In a second letter, Susan Jhirad, a retired English professor from North Shore Community College based in Peabody, reflected on teaching methods designed to counteract the challenges posed by AI in educational settings. Referencing Tom Kaspers, an assistant professor at the University of Chicago, she praised his approach of encouraging collaboration, creativity, and critical thinking in philosophy courses to discourage reliance on AI-generated work. Jhirad drew from her own pre-AI teaching experience, recalling strategies such as group work centered on complex texts and in-class essay drafts aimed at minimizing academic dishonesty.

Both correspondents emphasized the continued value of human interaction and intellectual curiosity amid the rise of AI technologies. Gallant argued that readers seek “humanity” in the written word, while Jhirad highlighted the role of educational practices in nurturing democratic citizenship through cooperative and critical learning experiences. Their reflections point to a broader dialogue about balancing technological advances with the preservation of individual insight and communal engagement in writing and education.