Artificial Intelligence, at its core, is a set of computational systems capable of identifying patterns, generating language, and making predictions in ways that increasingly resemble human reasoning. Its influence is embedded in daily life, shaping everything from targeted recommendations to workplace norms to the boundaries of creativity. What stands out to me is how AI continually forces us to renegotiate what counts as “thinking,” “creating,” or even “learning.”
I’ve experienced this renegotiation across very different contexts. In my consulting internship this past summer, I was encouraged (almost expected) to use AI to work faster, analyze more, and deliver polished client-ready materials. It felt like an expansion of my own capacity. By contrast, in my Anthropology “Art, Climate, and Nature” class, AI is strictly prohibited. That classroom intentionally removes shortcuts, asking us to observe slowly, create imperfectly, and reflect without digital mediation. The contrast makes me aware of how environments assign meaning to effort and authenticity.
A third perspective has emerged in my public policy research design course, where my semester-long research project examines how AI tools affect student perceived productivity across different majors. Surveying students has the great variation in perception of AI—STEM fields often see it as an efficiency tool, while humanities students question whether it undermines originality. The findings have pushed me to consider not only what AI can do, but what it might quietly reshape in academic culture.
The insight that stays with me is that AI is never neutral. Whether it expands human potential or dilutes human connection depends on the norms we build around it. Moving forward, I want to remain curious about its possibilities while staying intentional about when choosing the slower, human route matters most.