I’m a high school EFL teacher living in China who focuses on writing, and lately, some of my students have been using AI to do their writing assignments. The clues are obvious: suddenly perfect grammar, a sophisticated vocabulary, and a generally impressive command of written English.

Part of it is curiosity about a new technology, but students also realize the potential time savings. The hours spent on an argument essay can be reduced to a few minutes. As a world of political instability breeds apathy among the younger generation, students must be asking themselves why they should bother doing so much boring work when they could be doing anything else. It’s an incredibly enticing prospect.

Many English teachers see AI usage as a form of academic dishonesty. Teachers have devised countermeasures like the “Trojan Horse” method, which makes AI insert keywords into its output. Some have called for returning to handwritten in-class work. By and large, though, there are no surefire ways to detect AI usage.

Taking this all into account, teachers have a problem on their hands. The way some students are using the technology threatens to negate the value of schoolwork, so teachers need to reframe AI as not a tool for corner-cutting, but a powerful ally in promoting student learning and critical thinking. To do this, they need to revisit their curricula and reconsider what type of work is actually worth doing.

Many people see the potential for helping students learn. Anthropic’s new learning mode represents a big move into the education sector. Countless startups have built products based on generative AI. Duolingo, the language learning app, is pushing hard for its integration, too. The technology holds great potential to improve student learning experiences and learning outcomes in every area.

First, AI provides a huge opportunity for students to access personalized learning resources. As a tutor, AI could explain concepts in a way that’s tailored to the individual learner. And for many places in China, for example, where class sizes can range from 40 to 50 students, this technology may be a godsend. Even lower-income students usually have access to a cell phone and an internet connection. It only remains for teachers to find ways to encourage their effective use.

If AI tools could access curriculum information and student performance data, generative AI-based learning systems could provide direct personalized support for students in the areas that they need most. This might be what Anthropic was thinking when it announced its deal with Instructure, the makers of the learning management system Canvas. Part of that personalized support can and should include guidance on setting and achieving actionable goals, a critical skill for teenage learners.

This type of personalized support is just one example of how AI could help students improve their critical thinking skills. While we currently lack comprehensive integrated systems that leverage AI to help students learn, this is still possible with the tools available today.

One thing is certain—generative AI isn’t going anywhere. Teachers need to incorporate AI tools into their curricula. Many students will use AI as a quick fix for homework that they don’t see the point of. Some have called for teachers to reflect on the real value of the work they’ve been giving their students. After all, if ChatGPT can do it for you so easily, is it worth doing?

Teachers could design prompts that help students ask questions and reflect on their experiences. They could even ask students to create their own prompts and evaluate the results, as this lesson plan from the AI Pedagogy Project demonstrates. An ideal writing curriculum would involve both using AI to help us evaluate our own work while also building the skill of evaluating AI’s output. If students are going to use AI anyway, teachers must include effective and ethical use of this technology in their objectives.

I’m optimistic that AI can and will be a good tool for helping students learn critical thinking skills. The key is changing the perception of AI as an intern to one as a Socratic questioner. Then, it becomes a mirror that helps us understand our own thought processes.

While there is so much potential, we must admit the reality of the situation. Schools are institutions, and their inertia makes it difficult to change course quickly, or even at all. In a time of increased standardized testing, teachers have less autonomy and students have no choice but to work through outdated homework assignments and busywork. While we sit and wait for the system to change, is it really so bad that students save time on their homework?

This isn’t even a new problem. Years before ChatGPT’s initial release, we had CliffsNotes. We had YouTube. And anyone with half-decent writing skills could use those resources to crank out an essay assignment in the evening before it was due—something I know from experience.

My carefree childhood was time well spent. I experimented and discovered things I liked and was good at, even sometimes at the expense of a few late homework assignments. Now, as a teacher in China, I see what happens when students lack that free time. Many students over here have their own interests and hobbies, to be sure, but it breaks my heart the number of times I’ve heard “sleeping” as my students’ hobby. This is the result of a system that leaves little room for creativity and little respect for children’s personal development.

In light of this reality, students should use what tools they have at their disposal to find a sustainable work-life balance. Generative AI could be that silver bullet.

Some schoolwork just isn’t that important. Students have disparate needs and interests. Much like we might use ChatGPT to write a report for our bosses, teachers need to accept the possibility that students may do the same thing with their math homework or their English essay.

Like it or not, generative AI is changing the dynamic between students, teachers, and the curriculum. Teachers must find new ways to engage student interest and promote critical thinking. This technology holds amazing potential to provide every student with a genuinely valuable education—but, if we don’t change, school might just teach students that learning is pointless. I hope that we do better than that.