Are we losing the ability to actually research?
When faced with writing assignments that require secondary sources, many students will sit in the library, ask ChatGPT to give them sources, or just have it write the essay for them. This is deeply concerning, not just because of the cognitive toll it takes, but because of how little awareness there seems to be about that toll in the first place.
Even students who are determined to do their own research often take the easier path: researching online, Ctrl+F-ing journal articles for the exact line they need, or reading an AI summary before they’ve read anything themselves. Another popular shortcut, heavily marketed on social media, is Anara, which can summarise and cross-reference journal articles for you. Within all of these “easy” options lies the actual problem.
What We’re actually losing
The real issue is that students of all ages are losing one of the key foundations of academia: research itself. Not just a Google Scholar search, but looking through the stacks, accessing archives, using microfiche readers, the kind of deep, hands-on research that used to be the default rather than the exception.
Although using AI can certainly lead to more efficient outcomes, proper research can give us more than just recycled data. By utilising the physical resources at our disposal we are able to generate new research, new ideas based on originality and previous advancements leading to deeper understanding of individual subjects but the interconnection between them.
There are moments where relying on digitised sources from JSTOR is genuinely fine. But when you’re sitting in the library, surrounded by thousands of materials directly relevant to your course, why default to asking Claude or ChatGPT to research and write for you instead? Often, this leads to a lack of peer-reviewed sources, false information, and a shallower understanding of the material than you’d get doing it yourself.
The library as aesthetic, not a tool
It seems like most people have forgotten what a library is actually for.
Sure, it can double as a study space, or just another seat on campus. But I’ve heard third years who don’t know how to borrow a book, and law students discussing ChatGPT-generated cases and examples in the lift, right as they get off on the law floor. They were talking about using it to generate sources for them, one even said that they had just turned in an essay generated entirely by ChatGPT, not even bothering to adjust or change anything. In the moment I felt white hot searing rage because it was my fifth consecutive day in the library after two exams and with three essays still due, assessments where I refused to touch anything that involved generative AI. It felt unfair.
It’s become something of an epidemic: using the excuse of “going to the library” to trick your brain into feeling productive, while actually cheating your way through the assignment underneath. Thankfully, this doesn’t apply to everyone. There are plenty of people genuinely using the library to study, take notes, and read. I applaud every one of them.
A more realistic middle ground
In an ideal world, you’d do all of your own research, take your own notes, and build your own ideas from the ground up. This isn’t a perfect world. A more realistic approach, whether you’re committed to the library or working from home, is a genuine mix of digital and analog sources.
Treating the library as a placeholder, a source of inspiration, or just an extra seat on campus is completely fine on its own. It’s when that’s combined with skipping real research, or outsourcing your thinking to generative AI entirely, that the question becomes unavoidable: how much are you actually gaining from being here at all?
Don’t lean on generative AI to think for you. Ask your professors when you’re stuck. Ask the library itself, that’s what it’s there for. Romanticising your study aesthetic can only carry you so far. How much are you actually studying if all you’re doing is prompting Claude?
Most people will turn to generative AI due to its convenience and the fact that it keeps being pushed everywhere. “It’s the future” or at least thats the lie that we are sold, regardless of what area you study in. Realistically, we need human invention and creativity, it’s what we depend on and the reason we have come so far. Not only are you preventing cognitive decline by doing your own research, you are able to discover new interests, prevent further damage to earths valuable resources, and you are allowing for a further flourishing within your academic areas. Generative AI can only repeat things that already exist, you on the other hand, can create new ideas – this is the real win.