Generative artificial intelligence was posed as a harbinger of the future, a tool of titanic proportions. 

Supporters predicted unheralded productivity that could bring about a new human age. 

Nowadays, the general experience with these large language models includes social media disinformation, academic dishonesty and stolen work. A 2025 study by the Harvard Kennedy School found that AI use in news increases the public’s susceptibility to disinformation, particularly with images and headlines. 

In the face of the dangers of unmitigated AI use, UTD chose to board a sinking ship and all but tie itself to the anchor.

On Feb. 11, UTD released a vague article announcing a $4 million grant from the Department of Education to promote AI literacy and classroom use in Dallas-Fort Worth area high schoolers. The article does little more than announce the grant and partnership, as most of the piece comprises generalized quotes and positive comments on the future of AI in the workplace.

After the grant was announced, principal investigator Gaurav Shekar stated that UTD wanted to be a premier school for AI in academics. He further said, “This grant is a shot in the arm to making that dream possible.”

According to the article, UTD plans to partner with Uplift Education, a local charter school network. A readthrough of the project abstract reveals that they plan to use AI literacy modules to promote responsible academic AI use in 10th through 12th grade. These proposed modules appear similar to UTD’s current substance abuse and mental health awareness lessons. The abstract also mentions using AI for instructional resources and tutoring. 

To follow this plan is to accept generative AI’s role in modern society.

It is looking in the face of AI’s falsehoods and plagiarism and deciding that it should still be used in schools.

Generative AI cannot reliably research information. It cannot draft a unique essay. It cannot reliably create practice tests with correct answers. It cannot generate new visuals. It cannot even properly cite its sources.

Generative AI is incapable of its own thoughts and creations because it is trained on human thoughts and creations. Its writing style, image generation and very responses are an inherent plagiarization of a real human’s work. 

There is little these chatbots can do to improve a student’s education that is not already done by a non-generative AI tool. 

A 2025 study by MIT Media Labs compared brain activity when writing an essay, with one group using a large language model, one with a search engine and one with no outside sources. They found that the generative AI group displayed lower brain activity and high initial acceptance of AI information, indicating a lack of critical thinking during the writing process.

Teachers have raised concerns about current AI use outside the classroom degrading students’ critical thinking abilities. Researchers proved that using generative AI to write essays resulted in lessened brain activity. Both signs indicate that increased AI use will only harm students further.

And yet, the UTD administration is investing millions of dollars into lessons they believe will solve the AI problem. 

The UTD announcement includes claims that these literacy efforts will better prepare students for college and the workforce. The project heads believe that through these modules, they can teach students how to amplify generative AI’s strengths and mitigate its weaknesses. 

The productivity boosts UTD hopes to unlock may arrive, but they will do so at the immediate cost of the student’s cognitive abilities. Using generative AI in the classroom sacrifices critical thinking and copies off existing work. 

AI’s shortcomings are pervasive and any of its academic benefits compromise the students themselves. Making generative AI a mainstay in the classroom hazards AI overreliance, an overreliance that breeds a population incapable of thinking for itself and distinguishing truth from misinformation. 

Beyond classroom implementation, these modules set a dangerous precedent for AI in the future: if people are willing to work around AI’s academic failures, what concessions will be made for generative AI’s failures in other sectors? 

Generative AI is not the wunderkind it was marketed as. 

Its use online has produced significant amounts of disinformation. Its use in schools harms critical thinking capabilities. Its use in general plagiarizes the human condition. 

UTD’s multimillion dollar investment into promoting generative AI use is a dangerous endeavor that risks exacerbating the very problem it was meant to fix.

In 1912, people believed in a futuristic ship that would never sink. 

114 years later, UTD administration runs the same risk with generative AI.