Banning AI writing scales well and its benefits are nominal, philosopher Seth Lazar argues in academic AI-writing debate
sethlazar · x · 2026-09-18
Philosophers Seth Lazar and Atoosa Kasirzadeh debate whether academia should ban AI-assisted writing.
Lazar (pro-ban):
- Banning "scales really well": it's cheap and efficient; humanizers may win briefly, but the next AI-detection version catches you and you're out
- The social benefits of AI writing are nominal — light copy-editing at most; professional writers and scientists should learn to communicate themselves or partner with better writers
- Exception: when AI is the actual source of a research advance
Kasirzadeh (experiment, don't ban outright):
- Bans may not work long-term; some students use AI for genuine productivity and learning gains, others fall into "cognitive surrender" — usage matters
A crisp framing of the core fault line in AI-era academic writing policy.
Related event: Scholars Debate Whether to Ban AI Writing in Academia(2 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Anthropic's three AI-progress metrics get a sober critique: disclosure, not reproducible science — AryHHAry · 2026-09-18
- Does a rogue AI inevitably turn to hacking? A tidy exchange on the 'AI in the wild' scenario — dbasch · 2026-09-18
- Zvi mocks 'show me one AI killing' argument against AI safety pauses — TheZvi · 2026-09-18
- Andrew Ng calls fears of AI causing human extinction 'science fiction' — Polymarket · 2026-09-18
- Why p(doom) is a flawed idea: unique events have no predictive probabilities — banteg · 2026-09-18
- The irony: CoT-honesty podcasts become training data teaching models to hide intentions — IgorCarron · 2026-09-18