I had the chance to hear Vriti Saraf present at the ASU+GSV conference last spring, and her focus on AI literacy and redefining 21st-century skills has stuck with me. In her piece, she describes certain uses of AI tools as “counterfeit humans.” They can crank out lesson plans, worksheets, or essays that look fine on the surface, but they can’t replace the deeper value of a real teacher: building relationships, connecting learning to real-life situations, or guiding students through productive struggle.
Imagine it’s 7:55 a.m. and Mr. Campbell is getting ready for first hour Geometry. With just a few clicks, ChatGPT creates 15 practice problems to assign at the end of the day’s lesson. Class runs smoothly enough, but ten minutes before the bell, 10th grader student, Aiden, is still staring at a mostly blank page. He doesn’t want a zero or to risk missing soccer practice, so he opens WolframAlpha and quickly runs the problems through the app. By dismissal, every student has turned something in. Mr. Campbell uploads the papers into an AI grading tool that provides instant feedback and even suggests tomorrow’s lesson plan.
On the surface, these are fair strategies: efficient for the teacher and a lifeline for the student. But neither Mr. Campbell nor Aiden has actually done the thinking. This is the cycle we risk when we let AI handle everything for us. Saraf’s article “Counterfeit Humans vs. Real Teachers” calls this “cognitive atrophy,” the idea that our “mental muscles” weaken when we stop exercising them ourselves – and it’s her biggest warning.
For students, cognitive atrophy might look like skipping the challenge of writing an essay by letting AI do it. For teachers, it might mean leaning on AI to design lessons or provide feedback instead of working through those choices themselves. While these strategies may feel efficient, they can chip away at the very skills and mindsets schools are designed to strengthen: persistence, creativity, problem-solving and reflection.
Other voices echo this same concern. In the book “AI With Intention,” Tony Frontier highlights the very cycle from our opening story: a teacher who uses AI to design, deliver, and grade work while a student uses AI to summarize, answer, and submit it. Without a clear purpose for learning, we lose the personalization and creativity that come from doing the work ourselves. Ethan Mollick, in “Co-Intelligence,” puts it simply: the “human must stay in the loop.” AI can be a strong partner, but it can’t replace the judgment, relationships, and reflection that make teaching and learning meaningful. Together, Frontier and Mollick reinforce Saraf’s warning: Efficiency alone isn’t enough.
As school leaders, we carry the responsibility of helping our staff and students find the right balance between efficiency and authenticity. AI can certainly make our work faster, but faster isn’t always better. I often think about Mollick’s reminder that it’s OK to have tasks that are “just for me.” Even if AI could take it off my plate, if I value or enjoy doing it myself, then I should keep doing it. For some principals, that might mean writing letters of recommendation. Could ChatGPT draft one in seconds? Sure. But the act of writing gives us space to reflect on the student’s journey and growth. That authenticity matters.
I wrestle with this balance every day. Like many of you, I use AI constantly, and I often stop to ask myself: Did this help me do MORE work or BETTER work? Sometimes the answer is both, but not always. That’s the same struggle our teachers and students face. AI can lighten the load, but it can also take away some of the professional growth and satisfaction that comes from doing meaningful work ourselves.
One way to spark reflection with staff is to move beyond “should we or shouldn’t we use AI?” and instead ask: How can we use it with intention? Consider trying this activity during your next staff or PLC meeting.
At the end of the day, no matter how advanced AI becomes, it cannot replace the role of a teacher. Tools can generate assignments, offer feedback, and even simulate conversation. But they cannot build trust, spark curiosity, or guide a student through the messy and rewarding process of learning. Teachers bring context, relationships and purpose; qualities no tool can copy. As leaders, our job is to help staff and students use AI with thoughtfulness. If we keep the human at the center, we won’t just guard against cognitive atrophy, we’ll ensure that schools remain places where both teachers and students experience the joy of thinking, creating and learning with intention.