ShareFacebookX (formerly Twitter)Universities in Australia and around the world are in crisis. This manifests on many levels: failures of governance, exploitation of casual teaching staff, declining support for the humanities and social sciences (HASS) and the growing questioning of the value of a university education. Add to this the crisis of critical thinking that has both accompanied and been accelerated by the rapid adoption of generative AI in universities. OpenAI’s launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 raised the expectations of universities for what these technologies might mean for the way research is undertaken, how knowledge is produced and how students are taught and learn.But universities have failed, for the most part, to articulate a clear and consistent response to the consequences of artificial intelligence for critical thinking. They seemed to assume the need to embrace such new technologies or risk being “left behind”, assuring themselves that the attendant risks can be “managed” by adherence to guidelines for their “ethical and responsible” use. It is unclear what this means in practice, however, particularly when technologies are rapidly evolving, the rules are vague and fluid, and scholars and students alike are regularly called upon to exercise their own judgement about what constitutes the proper use of AI.A primary danger posed by the AI hype is that thinking will be outsourced to machines whose operations are not only opaque but prone to error and bias. These machines have been marketed — and are increasingly viewed by many academics and students who use them — as being “intelligent” and as having the potential to develop “agentic” and “affective” capacities which will even surpass human intelligence. Such anthropomorphism is deliberately encouraged both by the name given to these technologies (“artificial intelligence”) and by their design (which presents as “human-like” and “engaging”). And even as their capacities and benefits are inflated, their attendant risks are either downplayed or portrayed as manageable. This is a process sometimes called “ethics washing”.Want the best of Religion & Ethics delivered to your mailbox?Sign up for our weekly newsletter.Email addressSubscribeYour information is being handled in accordance with the ABC Privacy Collection Statement. What has become known as AI creep — the surreptitious introduction of supposed “intelligence” into existing technologies — poses acute risks for the mission of universities that have incorporated their use into their strategic plans. History is, after all, full of examples of technologies that have failed to deliver on their promises and brought with them unforeseen consequences.Huge investment in technologies, especially data centres, has yet to deliver the expected returns in the form of beneficial applications. To date, only Nividia — a company best known for producing graphics processing units and chips — has managed to be profitable. There are well-founded fears that we are already in an AI bubble that may soon burst, which would likely do irreparable damage to university operations, including research programs.Some academics and independent researchers have sounded the alarm on artificial intelligence. There is a groundswell of opposition to these technologies, with concerns raised about issues such as the infringement on the rights of authors, the environmental costs of data centres, the social costs of automation as well as surveillance and military applications. A group of scholars recently published an article called “Against the Uncritical Adoption of ‘AI’ Technologies in Academia”, which identified the dangers posed by these technologies for critical thinking, expertise, academic freedom and scientific integrity, and argued for the importance of countering AI companies’ marketing hype.Mathematicians, whose work provides the foundation for machine learning, recently joined computer scientists, social scientists and philosophers in the growing backlash against these technologies. This backlash strikes an optimistic note in an otherwise bleak scenario in which universities seem to be sleepwalking into a future where they and their now esteemed researchers are likely to become redundant.Critical thinking and the role of imaginationUniversities, I suggest, need to give serious consideration to how to reclaim critical thinking in the age of artificial intelligence. There are different views on exactly what “critical thinking” means and how it might be nurtured. But many would agree that it should entail the capacity to challenge taken-for-granted assumptions about our world and to think beyond the present.A precondition for critical thought is imagination — particularly the sociological imagination, which involves interrogating the social and historical context that shapes ways of thinking and acting. This kind of imagination allows one to envisage that how societies are organised is not inevitable and could be otherwise. Thinking in general demands sustained attention free of distraction. This, however, is undermined by the pressure on university staff to constantly generate outputs and demonstrate that they are productive and successful, as measured by conventional metrics such as research grants, the number and quality of journal articles, and proof that one’s work has “impact”. This relentless busyness has led to widespread attention deficit among staff, who struggle to find the space and energy for sustained thinking and the required collaboration. Students, too, suffer from this attention deficit, which is exacerbated by the ubiquitous use of digital technologies, the need to work long hours to support their studies and the fears they face about their futures. Like staff, many students appear to suffer “digital exhaustion” or the fatigue associated with constant time online, incessant emails and non-stop notifications.In Australia, HASS students face the extra burden of huge debts generated by the failed Job-ready Graduates scheme, which involved doubling their fees while discounting the fees of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) courses. It is little wonder that many students are questioning the value of a university education when the reward for effort is uncertain and the costs often high. Yet critical thinking has never been more important, at a time of converging crises posed by increasing inequality, climate change, widespread questioning of expertise and notions of truth, the erosion of trust in authorities and the emergence of authoritarianism. The rise of cancel culture and the inability to debate opposing views are but symptoms of a polycrisis, whose character and implications demand in-depth analysis.Have universities lost their soul?A major impediment to nurturing critical thinking is that universities today are essentially corporate machines. They are driven by the profit motive, which for many means attracting international students, generating intellectual property and showing potential students, benefactors and the wider public that they are at the forefront of technological research and development — which increasingly is seen as prioritising the use of AI.To this end, international rankings have become crucial signifiers of merit, and efforts by universities to improve their standing has had many unfortunate outcomes, as described by George Williams and Raeywn Connell. These include “metrics fixation”, conformity, the erosion of critical thinking, self-censoring and increasing stress and mental health problems among staff and students. Many staff have expressed their fear about speaking out on controversial issues such as the war in Gaza and the plight of Palestinians, lest they jeopardise their careers.In Australia, some trace this corporatisation and conformism back to the Dawkins reforms of the late 1980s, which were part of the broader neoliberal shift in politics and policies that were sweeping much of the world around that time. We continue to feel the effects of these changes, particularly in the demise of free education and increased competition between both universities and individual academics. In such a marketised environment, staff and students have less time and energy to socialise with colleagues (who are viewed as competitors) and to exercise their imaginations.The challenge for universities when it comes to reclaiming critical thinking is that the digital technologies on which they have become reliant are designed to capture and monetise attention. Generative AI technologies have accelerated attention capture, not least through easy access to platforms that have been promoted as “thinking partners” or “personalised agents”. These technologies have then been foisted on staff and students with seemingly no reflection on the implications for teaching and learning, research and the production of knowledge. There is not even sufficient discussion of the fact that “AI” is not one thing, but a collection of technologies with different purposes and functions.Universities should support critical scholarship on the history and politics of innovations such as artificial intelligence and the vested interests that promote technologies — especially Big Tech, which is currently on a “trillion-dollar spending spree”. In recent years, some courses on the social implications of AI have been offered by universities Australia and elsewhere. But for most staff and students, education on AI is limited to often vague instruction on their use, along with warnings about their dangers, effectively shifting responsibility for technology decisions onto individuals.Meanwhile, AI facilitated student cheating appears to be rife though difficult to detect. Moreover, evidence for the accuracy of generative AI detection tools is mixed, at best. Guidance about AI use among staff and students also varies greatly among universities. Recently, Australia’s former Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, urged tertiary institutions to adopt minimum standards for academics who use AI in their work, following a case where an academic was accused of using the technology to help write an article in The Sydney Morning Herald. The academic and their university defended using AI, insisting that there is a “big difference” between a piece “written ‘by’ AI” and it being “written with AI”. But is such a distinction really that clear? The case highlighted the ambiguities that surround the acceptable use of AI and the different practices that pertain between universities.Will universities lead the way?The difficulties that staff face in navigating artificial intelligence are symptomatic of the absence of the kind of imaginative thinking in universities required to tackle the big challenges facing societies today. Through their expectations, deferral to sterile metrics, reward systems that focus on quantifiable outputs (such as publication in journals with “high impact factors”) and the disproportionate valuing of STEM and devaluing of HASS, they encourage conformity and the pursuit of short-term, measurable goals.Universities urgently need to create the environment for imaginative, sustained thinking. This requires universities to reimagine their own role — one driven less by metrics, rankings, short-term, quantifiable outcomes and the uncritical embrace of allegedly “breakthrough innovations”. Such a role will be more focused on how they may help positively shape the future rather than simply conform to the fever dreams promoted by Big Tech and its advocates. What universities will be brave enough to lead the way?Alan Petersen is Professor of Sociology at Monash University. He is the author of Pandemic Societies: A Critical Public Health Perspective, Emotions Online: Feelings and Affordances of Digital Media and The Handbook on the Sociology of Health and Medicine.Posted Wed 1 Jul 2026 at 8:54pmWed 1 Jul 2026 at 8:54pmWed 1 Jul 2026 at 8:54pmShareFacebookX (formerly Twitter)Desirable difficulties: AI and the death of thinkingWhen it comes to AI, appearances can be deceivingThe AI disruption and the promise of the humanitiesSydney Morning Herald takes down article after author admits using AITo protect the humanities from Humanities, Inc., academics should stop writing like chatbotsThe conversation between AI research and the humanities needs to deepen — the alternative is nihilismBabel or Jerusalem? Pope Leo and the AI revolutionWhy AI won’t make universities obsoleteUniversities, AIBack to top