University of South Florida faculty gathered Monday to debate a question confronting schools at every level: should classrooms embrace AI, adapt it carefully, or resist it outright? The Tampa campus panel drew a clear split between professors who see the technology as an unavoidable reality and those who argue it undermines human creativity and learning.
The "Teaching with AI: Embrace, Adapt or Resist?" event featured three panelists moderated by USF Provost Prasant Mohapatra. John Licato, associate professor in the Bellini College of Artificial Intelligence, Cybersecurity and Computing, and Stephanie Arthur, assistant professor of instruction in the College of Education, spoke in favor of thoughtful AI adoption. Deepak Singh, an affiliate faculty member in the Judy Genshaft Honors College who teaches writing, opposed its use.
The case for bringing AI into the classroom
Arthur framed the issue in practical terms. "AI is here," she said. "It's not going anywhere and we already recognize that our students are using it. There's no way we can put that toothpaste back in that tube." She called for building foundations of AI literacy while maintaining "human-centered control for privacy and security and voice."
Licato described AI as another tool for computer science students, pointing to a Ph.D. candidate who built a custom text editor using the technology. Arthur added that AI can help teachers reach students with different learning needs, including those who do not speak English as a primary language. She also argued that students who learn to use emerging technologies gain a competitive edge in the job market after graduation.
The argument for human intelligence and craft
Singh pushed back against the assumption that AI assistance is always a net positive. "To assume that human intelligence is inferior to an artificial one is quite demeaning," he said. "It's like saying eat this artificial orange when the original orange is sitting right next to it. You can use your own brain. We are being so pessimistic about human intelligence."
He argued that passion for a task should make delegation unnecessary. In writing, Singh said, culture brings different personalities into the work, and an author's voice "can be flat" when AI enters the creative process. He also warned that students who rely on generative tools like ChatGPT to find information retain less of what they read.
Rethinking assignments and course design
Licato said AI forces instructors to clarify the purpose of their courses. "The guardrails around the purpose of the course itself have to be made even clearer than they were before," he said. "If AI changes the purpose of your course, then shouldn't we at least think about that?"
Arthur urged faculty to include students in setting AI policies. She said undergraduates and graduate students "are very interested in sharing their voices" and "want to be heard." She believes AI should be discussed in classrooms as early as first grade and that assignments must change to model ethical use. For educators looking to build these skills, structured AI for Teachers training can provide a starting point for integrating the technology responsibly.
The hidden risk for junior professionals
Licato highlighted a dynamic playing out beyond education. Senior programmers with decades of experience use AI tools to produce code rapidly because they know where to look for bugs. Junior programmers watching this process often assume they can do the same, without the years of debugging that built their seniors' instincts.
"Just because it is really easy to take AI and use it to do the kind of skills that you usually give to junior employees doesn't mean you should," Licato said. He argued that early-career workers need room to make mistakes and learn from them - a process AI shortcuts can undermine.
Arthur noted that the current moment echoes earlier technology shifts. "This isn't new," she said. "We have been addressing new technologies for decades. So, we're here again. What we learned from the last time around was that every voice should be represented."
Why this matters for educators
The USF panel surfaced a tension that teachers at every grade level now face: students are already using AI, whether or not schools have policies for it. Ignoring the tools does not make them disappear. But adopting them without clear purpose risks flattening the skills that assignments were designed to build - especially the slow, messy work of learning to write, debug, and think. The panelists agreed on one practical step: bring students into the conversation when setting classroom AI rules. Arthur's insistence on starting AI literacy in first grade signals that this is not a higher-ed problem alone. K-12 teachers and administrators who want to stay ahead of the curve can explore resources on AI for Education to begin shaping their own approach.
Your membership also unlocks:
