By Dr Sanchita Kuchi & Dr Simarjeet Singh

When ChatGPT arrived in classrooms, most universities panicked. Students were caught submitting AI-written essays; committees rushed to draft bans and integrity policies; faculty wondered if grading itself had become meaningless. But behind this storm of plagiarism concerns lies a deeper question: what is the purpose of higher education in a world where machines can think, write, and create?

This is not a technological question—it is a philosophical one. And the answer requires us to return philosophy, once dismissed as abstract or ornamental, to the very centre of higher education. As Harvard’s Dean of Undergraduate Education, Amanda Claybaugh, put it, “AI is a powerful tool in the hands of someone who knows how to evaluate its work—and that means someone who knows how to do that work themselves.” The point is simple but profound: without the human capacity to question, assess, and critique, even the smartest machine is a dangerous oracle.

Beyond panic: A philosophical reckoning

Generative AI compels us to ask first-order questions about knowledge and creativity. If AI can write a competent essay, why teach writing? If it can generate new scientific hypotheses, what becomes of the researcher? If it can paint or compose, what remains of human creativity?

These are not matters for IT departments or software policies. They strike at the heart of what it means to be human, to know, and to learn. As English professor Deidre Lynch warns, “Giving AI a central role in education, especially in the humanities, seems like a denial of everything that makes human beings human.”

The reactive posture—new rules, stricter surveillance—misses the point. What we need is not more policing of machines, but deeper reflection on what we fundamentally value in education.

UNESCO’s human-centred mandate

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has already framed this moment as a philosophical one. In its Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research, it calls for a “human-centred approach” where technology remains subordinate to human agency, equity, and dignity. UNESCO warns that over-reliance on AI risks compromising intellectual development itself. Efficiency and automation must not “usurp human thinking.” It also cautions against the homogenizing effect of large models, which tend to amplify dominant worldviews and marginalize minority voices. The danger, it argues, is a new kind of digital colonization—where values embedded in Western-built models spread globally, erasing cultural diversity.

The lesson for higher education is clear: AI is not neutral. It is an ideological agent, infused with the values of its creators. Teaching students to govern this technology according to consciously chosen principles is therefore not optional—it is the new mission of the university.

Why philosophy matters more than ever

Far from being made obsolete, the humanities are now indispensable. As AI systems master the how of information processing, philosophy focuses on the why and should we.

The ability to reason ethically, think critically, and interpret meaning has moved from “soft skill” to survival skill. As Stanford AI pioneer Fei-Fei Li observes, “We have a historical opportunity and responsibility to establish a human-centered framework for AI research, education, practice and policy.” That responsibility cannot be met without philosophy.

Consider John Searle’s famous “Chinese Room” thought experiment. A person inside a locked room can follow rules to output Chinese sentences without understanding a word. From outside, it looks intelligent, but it is only manipulating symbols. This is what today’s large language models do—fluent but uncomprehending. Their answers can be convincing, but empty of meaning.

Teaching students to spot this difference—between syntax and semantics, between fluency and truth—requires logic, epistemology, and ethics. It requires philosophy.

The shifting nature of knowledge

Generative AI is also transforming how knowledge itself is valued. In classical traditions, knowledge emerged from interpretation, struggle, and reflection. With AI, polished answers can be produced without effort, creating what some scholars call “epistemological drift”—a shift from valuing truth to valuing plausibility.

Students risk falling into “metacognitive laziness,” outsourcing thinking to machines and losing the ability to synthesize or critique. The burden of understanding, once carried by the author, now falls on the reader. AI produces text without accountability; the human must verify coherence, truth, and meaning.

This makes philosophical training—especially in logic and critical reasoning—an educational imperative. As one researcher noted, “AI never truly knows—it only predicts.” To navigate this world, students must be equipped not only to consume information but to interrogate it.

The author in the age of automation

The arrival of AI has destabilized the very notion of authorship. Courts in the United States have ruled that “human authorship is an essential part of a valid copyright claim.” Yet the debate remains unsettled. Is the author the prompter who shapes the output, the developer who trained the model, or the AI itself?

These are not technicalities; they are age-old philosophical questions about creativity, labor, and ownership. Kant and Hegel saw art as the expression of a person’s will and personality. Locke argued that property stems from labor. Today, those theories are playing out in copyright courts as societies decide who deserves recognition and reward in the AI age. Students must not only understand these debates but learn to participate in them. Philosophy provides that foundation.

From ivory tower to practical skill

It is tempting to see philosophy as abstract, but the rise of AI has created a direct market demand for philosophical skills. Consider the new role of “prompt engineer.” Writing effective prompts requires not just technical know-how, but creativity, nuance, and the ability to minimize bias. These are precisely the skills honed in philosophy classrooms.

The old dichotomy between “practical” STEM degrees and “impractical” humanities degrees is collapsing. In the modern knowledge economy, the ability to question assumptions, reason through dilemmas, and interpret complex systems is mission-critical.

As Claybaugh reminds us, the goal is not to produce students who can merely use AI, but who can evaluate and challenge it. That is the work of philosophy.

Reclaiming the core mission of universities

For centuries, universities have defended their relevance by producing employable graduates and cutting-edge research. In the AI age, these functions alone are not enough. The new mission must be to cultivate humanistic intelligence—the ability to think critically, ethically, and creatively in a world of machines.

This means reimagining curricula. Philosophy cannot remain a peripheral elective. It must be integrated into computer science, engineering, business, and beyond. Assessments must evolve too, focusing less on tasks AI can perform—summarization, basic analysis—and more on synthesis, judgment, and originality.

As one professor put it, “In an age where answers are cheap, the ability to ask the right questions has never been more valuable.”

A call to action

Generative AI is not the end of higher education, but a chance to return to its essence. Universities must embrace this moment not with fear, but with courage—by putting philosophy back at the centre. For students, this means learning to see AI not as a magic box, but as a cultural artifact—biased, powerful, and in need of scrutiny. For educators, it means designing classrooms where machines may assist, but humans remain accountable. For institutions, it means reaffirming their role not just as credentialing factories, but as guardians of wisdom.

Dr. Sanchita Kuchi is Associate Professor (Analytics) at Great Lakes Institute of Management, Gurugaon. Dr. Simarjeet Singh is Assistant Professor (Accounting and Finance) at Great Lakes Institute of Management, Gurugaon