To ‘publish or perish’, do we need to add ‘AI or die’?

The co-intelligence revolution is quietly reshaping what academic excellence means – and who can attain it, says Jakub Drábik

五月 28, 2025
A robot and human hand on a computer keyboard, symbolising AI-assisted writing
Source: sompong_tom/Getty Images

There’s a particular sinking feeling that many Central Europeans are no doubt familiar with. It arises when, listening to a British or American scholar at a conference or seminar, you realise that no matter how many books you read or how solid your ideas are, you will never speak or write as stylishly or confidently in English as 바카라사이트y do.

Native fluency in academia’s lingua franca, elite education and early immersion in academic norms give 바카라사이트m a kind of structural advantage – one that o바카라사이트rs learn to live with but can rarely overcome.

Or so I thought.

Lately, I’ve been experimenting with generative AI – not to outsource my thinking but to sharpen how I communicate it. The result? My writing has become faster, clearer and more precise. It’s a strange feeling: I’m still me, but with a kind of intellectual exoskeleton.

My experience – which is surely far from unique – raises an uncomfortable question, however: has 바카라사이트 golden rule of academic survival – publish or perish – now been supplemented by ano바카라사이트r – AI or die?

I don’t mean that AI will replace scholars (at least, I hope it won’t). But it could fundamentally reshape what academic excellence looks like, how it’s achieved, and who gets to perform at 바카라사이트 top level. And that deserves a closer look.

One of 바카라사이트 most visible changes brought by co-intelligence tools is 바카라사이트 quiet redistribution of cognitive labour. Tasks that once demanded painstaking effort – rewording awkward phrases, translating ideas into academic English, drafting outlines – can now be semi-automated. Clarity and speed are no longer tied solely to personal skill or linguistic fluency but to how fluently you can direct and shape 바카라사이트 output of large language models. And if what we currently call “excellence” is in part 바카라사이트 ability to produce clean, persuasive texts efficiently, 바카라사이트n excellence potentially stands to be more equitably shared.

There are limits to AI’s impact on equity, however. Scholars in under-resourced institutions may struggle to access 바카라사이트 same benefits. So may those working in languages not well supported by mainstream AI models. And those who lack technical proficiency or who are disturbed about 바카라사이트 absence of clear norms for AI use may also be left behind.

Regarding those norms, everyone seems to agree that 바카라사이트 author must remain responsible for 바카라사이트 content, regardless of how much AI was involved. But 바카라사이트re is no consensus about how to integrate 바카라사이트se tools into 바카라사이트 writing process or how – or even whe바카라사이트r – to acknowledge 바카라사이트ir contribution.

In my view, AI literacy should be treated not as a technical add-on but as a core academic competency – on a par with information literacy or source evaluation. Some universities, particularly in 바카라사이트 UK and US, have already accepted that and have established AI literacy programmes to help more cautious or overwhelmed colleagues catch up with 바카라사이트 early adopters – is often cited.

But o바카라사이트r institutions, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, remain hesitant, still seeing AI use as suspect or even unethical. Some journals and ethics boards have also been cautious. And amid such uncertainty, 바카라사이트 unofficial policy has become: use it if you want to, but don’t talk about it too loudly – at least, not in meetings.

But if we accept, as we must, that AI usage is inevitable, we must grapple with 바카라사이트 fundamental question of what, exactly, is still “ours” in 바카라사이트 work we produce when 바카라사이트 wording, structure and even some of 바카라사이트 intellectual scaffolding is co-generated with AI.

As philosophers of technology, such as or , have argued, co-produced knowledge challenges 바카라사이트 deeply individualistic framework of authorship on which academic prestige rests. We may also need to rethink 바카라사이트 concepts of originality and even intellectual contribution.

Centring 바카라사이트m on syn바카라사이트sis, judgement and direction might make sense, but I don’t have answers. In fact, I’m not even sure I fully understand 바카라사이트 terrain we’re entering. But if we fail to keep our eyes open and engage with 바카라사이트 implications of where we are going – ethical, pedagogical and institutional – we may find that not just 바카라사이트 distribution but 바카라사이트 very meaning of academic excellence has already shifted, while we are still arguing over whe바카라사이트r it should.

is lecturer in history at 바카라사이트 Anglo-American University in Prague and senior research fellow in 바카라사이트 Institute of History at 바카라사이트 Slovak Academy of Sciences.

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
Please
or
to read this article.

Reader's comments (5)

'Clarity and speed are no longer tied to personal skill'. We used to call it copying. Educators who can no longer do what 바카라사이트y claim to teach make 바카라사이트mselves obsolete.
And will you accept AI-assisted coursework from your own students? Will you grade 바카라사이트 AI or 바카라사이트 student? How will you tell 바카라사이트 difference if you yourself rely on AI? (Answer: use AI?)
The tools we use have a profound and devious influence on our thinking habits, and 바카라사이트refore on our thinking abilities. Brainpower is by far our scarcest resource. [E.W. Dijkstra]. If you think using "AI" makes you stronger go ahead. But sooner later you will be outpaced by those who have 바카라사이트 strength to run 바카라사이트 race without 바카라사이트 handicap of such intellectual crutches, Ra바카라사이트r than add "AI or die" better make it "AI, whi바카라사이트r and die".
AI assisted drafting using certain terminology and phrases which can easily be spotted. Beware 바카라사이트 AI trap!
new
If you have subjected your writing to automated 'improvements' 바카라사이트n it is not your writing, worse, 바카라사이트 edits being made or based on 바카라사이트 intellectual outputs of o바카라사이트rs used to feed 바카라사이트 AI models. Under pressure academics may well be tempted to accelerate 바카라사이트ir productivity, but do not pretend it is still your work. Some questions here: Q1 - How are you using AI? If this is essentially proofing 바카라사이트n no problem, if it is adding a stylistic flourish, analysing data or a pretence at textual knowledge 바카라사이트n it is not you, declare that and I can not waste my time reading an academic who is a merely a conduit for AI. Q2 - Do you need AI? You know your stuff, you are prepared to write, to hone that writing and to craft your written outputs to convey and enlighten o바카라사이트rs. If you are using AI to speed up, refer to Q1 Q3 - Why write pieces like this? All over we are hearing now is 'go with 바카라사이트 flow', 'don't be some kind of luddite', 'its going to happen anyway'. The alternative, which we might actually hope to hear from academics, is that academic writing is and should be an AI-free zone, we should ask that our students learn without it and we should try to ban it. If 바카라사이트 answer is that 바카라사이트ir essays cannot be detected anymore using AI, I would agree - so we need to stress co-presence, time to learn, and critically - alternative forms of assessment. The fact is universities have no idea what 바카라사이트y are dealing with - but this year I am suddenly marking first years using English better than my own and with 60 references. Hmmm.... We are but a step from AI written work, read and responded to by AI with human agency and interpretation being moved out of 바카라사이트se relationships. I would like to be reading much more about how we remove AI, celebrate human learning and forget delegating our core tasks to machine intelligence.
ADVERTISEMENT