The advent of AI has brought about an increasing number of users. AI tools are now a part of students' everyday life. From helping with assignments, to providing explanations, to creating summaries, or even listening to their rants. Essays, articles or write-ups meant to engage the student's mind and rationalize thinking that once took hours now takes a few seconds. But as these tools become more integral in their everyday life, it begs the question of: when do we engage our mind in critical thinking meant to transform us into total humans?

Most students have gotten to the point where they cannot do anything without making use of AI. The over-reliance of the application is something to take note of and be concerned about. Over time, these “easy” tools meant to make students’ lives “better” have unintentionally and quietly taken over their ability to respond, be interactive and think critically on matters even beyond their domain. When shortcuts toward arriving at the appropriate response starts to override the learning journey, how then do students really learn? When they stop asking the questions that need to be asked because all the answers are provided for them without them asking, what impact does that leave on the next generation of students the society is breeding?

Notably, the rise of artificial intelligence in education is not entirely negative. For many students who know how to use it well, AI tools have become helpful learning aids. These aids can come in various forms such as offering clarity on certain topics or areas of study, accessibility, and support where traditional methods sometimes fall short. They assist with research, simplify complex study materials, and help students keep up with their day-to-day tasks when everything gets overwhelming. When used responsibly, AI can enhance learning rather than diminish it. 

However, the issue does not lie in the existence of AI but rather in the frequency of how it is used and the absence of clear boundaries around its use. When assistance quietly turns into substitution, we risk mistaking speed for understanding and output for genuine learning.

The question, then, is not whether students should use artificial intelligence, but how and how often. Critical thinking has never been about having all the answers; it has always been about learning how to ask the right questions. If we allow AI to think for us before we have learned to think for ourselves, we may be shaping a generation fluent in convenience but disconnected from curiosity. Balance is key. AI should be a tool, not a crutch: one that supports learning without replacing the intellectual struggle that shapes informed, independent thinkers.