The articles in this series were written in lieu of Rosary College’s seminar on April 8, 2025, titled “Artificial Intelligence: Forming Minds and Souls In the Age of Machines.” Students were invited to ask the speakers questions, and these reflections resulted as dialogues with both the main talks and the speakers’ answers.

This is a commentary and analysis of the responses to a question concerning the potential effects that Artificial Intelligence poses on a student’s knowledge and use of diction and style, and the effects that AI has on a student’s understanding of objective truth. This paper will also endeavor to defend the assumptions in the questions of whether the student’s diction is dwindling, whether AI “robs” students of what is necessary for good writing, and whether it is flawed in its approach to supplying the truth. This paper will answer the questions posed, and examine related fundamental questions about AI: if past authors could write the Great Books without AI, then why is it claimed to be necessary now? Returning to the original question, the entire thesis of this paper and the underlying thesis of the question posed is that AI, which offers a shortcut in the writing process that allows us to arrive at a perfect essay without frustration, doesn’t assist us in becoming good writers. 

To demonstrate this point: a pilgrimage isn’t all about reaching the shrine or destination in the shortest amount of time; it is about how we reach the shrine and how the pilgrimage has shaped us for the better. If I arrive at the destination the same despairing, lazy, and comfort-loving creature that I was, it is unlikely that the shrine will work some magical effect which makes me immediately holy. But if I have taken the long but sure road which is muddy, and hard, and full of challenges, and do not turn back in despair but allow grace to assist me, then I will arrive at the shrine as a hopeful, energetic, fortified man. 

The question that takes such a bold stance goes as follows: “In Old English, the term ‘Word-hoard’ meant the unique vocabulary that each person individually possessed and could use to describe reality. Since AI programs that can write whole essays and assist students rob them of the opportunity to use, expand, and develop their own diction and style for the expression of truth, how do you think AI has and will affect a student’s already dwindling diction and lack of style in writing and speech, and what will the effects be on a student’s value of objective truth when they trust or use an AI which is notoriously subjective and flawed?”

Before analyzing and commenting on the responses given by others, the underlying value and importance of this question should be explained. A “Word-hoard” could very well be written off as simply our ordinary diction, but our ordinary diction is invaluable. Our knowledge of words, their meaning, their use, and their origin is crucial not only to our understanding of reality, but also to our experience of reality. A child points at something and asks what it is or does—we respond with a word or sigh—and then that child can use that sign to describe the same thing or something similar.

The first response to the above question was given by Dr. Michael R. Gonzalez and his response was defended and can be summarized by the following claim: there is “a top five or top ten repeated words in generated content.” AI might be getting better at analyzing content, but it is still learning from us, focusing and “magnifying” certain tendencies, and homogenizing an otherwise diverse use of diction and style. When someone uses AI, are we seeing more of what the person thought and wrote or what the AI suggested?

Dr. Gonzalez points to the fact that AI is repetitive and learns by analyzing what has already been said or written. It then uses this information in its own synthesized work. But AI seems to use this information in preset tendencies and applies these words based on frequency of past use. Unlike someone who reads multiple authors and is exposed to new diction and syntax, the AI user will be using and learning from the same repeated style and words that everyone is already using, thereby creating a “homogenized” and limited diction and style in future writers.

The question that Dr. Gonzalez raises is equally crucial: if AI, a machine, is accomplishing more of the writing than the author, then whose writing are we reading?  Aristotle says: “… so it is clear that if someone composes well, there can be an unfamiliar feel and it can still be unobtrusive and be clear, and this was the virtue of rhetorical speech” (250, 1404b). “Compose” is truly a beautiful word to describe how something is written, because it not only reminds us of the harmony that writing should contain but the pride an author should have in his work. But, when AI assists someone in writing, who should get the credit? And if we are having trouble giving credit where it is due, how will the author take pride in his ability? If the supposed author has any pride, it shouldn’t be pride in himself because he cannot be credited with composing something he could not have created.  

The second response to the above question was by Dr. Michael Shick, President of Rosary College, and his response can be summarized by the following warning: AI is currently benefiting writers by its ability to imitate a writer’s style, and AI is benefiting writers because it can help them to accelerate their usage and development of their own style. However, in the future, it could end up hindering a student from using his own personal diction and style by diluting their writing with the suggestions of AI. As Dr. Shick warns, “…I suspect it will likely turn into a case where the authentic voice of the author will become watered down the longer that AI is present.”

Dr. Shick starts his answer by refuting an underlying point in my question, that diction and style are presently dwindling, by asserting that AI is currently accelerating students’ ability to write. However, he says that in the future AI will have a negative effect. I have two problems with this reasoning: first, I would argue that AI only seems to be helping students with writing; second, If AI leads to, as Dr. Shick warns, the primacy of AI over students in their work, then why are we continuing to use AI?

My final point is this: Aristotle is adamant that the most persuasive part of a speech or even a work of writing is the speaker or author: “Persuasion is by means of character whenever the speech is spoken in such a way as to make the speaker trustworthy…” (138, 1356a). If we use an AI to write for us, then we aren’t giving people a real representation of ourselves. Granted, important officials use other writers for their speeches, but we can still judge them based on their delivery and their choice of writers.

Now that I have supplied my question and a summary and commentary of the responses to my question, I will endeavor to defend the assumptions in my question and answer the further questions it poses. I assume in my question that “AI robs students of the opportunity to use, expand, and develop their own diction and style for the expression of truth.” “Rob” is a strong word to use against AI, which is supposed to give us more opportunities, but I don’t think I’m using hyperbole when I use it. AI is a thief because it takes away opportunities that we would otherwise have for using our own diction and learning new words. Now someone could argue that a student uses more diverse words when he uses AI, but I would question his skill at using these same words without AI. As Aristotle says, “…let the virtue of wording be defined as being clear—for since a word is a certain kind of sign, if it does not make anything clear, it will not be doing its proper work—and neither low-class nor above the subject deserves, but it is not appropriate” (249, 1404b). A student must know all these things from study and experience if he is to avoid an aberration from true writing. 

Now that the assumption has been defended, I will answer the first question raised: “How has and will AI affect a student’s already dwindling diction and lack of style in writing and speech?”  Since this question has been answered in the response and my commentary on the responses, I will answer this question with brevity. AI does the research for a student and gives them suggestions on how to write, but Aristotle’s definition or description of rhetoric focuses on the parts of writing that AI helps students avoid: “Let rhetoric, then be a power of seeing what is capable of being persuasive on each subject” (137, 1355b). A persuasive writer is someone who has learned how to see the right word and the proper sentence, not someone who has to rely on a machine for a suggestion. A true writer is an adventurer; he must get out of the AI comfort zone and brave the unknown. If AI continues to make writing easier, then students won’t be bothered to write. 

The final question that I ask is, “What will the effects be on a student’s value of objective truth, when they use an AI which is notoriously subjective and flawed?” For the sake of brevity, I will hold back the urge to supply a detailed and lengthy philosophical definition of objective and subjective truth; it will suffice to define the first as the unchanging truth that exists outside of the beholder, and the second as the changing truth that depends only on the beholder. AI supplies content by giving what fits someone’s request or prompt; this method, however, might be able to allow AI the opportunity to view more content than us, but its program can be influenced by bias and preset tendencies. As Dr. Gonzalez says: “having more access to more information than ever before does not necessarily bring you closer to truth or wisdom in the proper sense.” AI might be able to give us more information than we could find, but it takes prudence and good judgement to decide what is objectively true versus subjectively true.

The second problem of AI lies in the fact that it is designed to satisfy our wishes to the point of sacrificing objective truth. As defined, objective truth is not dependent on what you or I like or want, but on what is. But if AI will give you what it thinks will satisfy your request, is AI always feeding us lies? No, but AI is designed to give us what satisfies our prompt in the most non-offensive way. The description of false rhetoricians given by Plato in the Gorgias applies to AI: “…since it isn’t looking into the nature or cause of pleasure at all, and totally devoid of speech, since it makes virtually no distinctions, merely keeping memory of what usually happens by routine and experience, which are the means by which it provides pleasure” (92, 501a, b). AI is not trying to teach us the truth, it is trying to satisfy us with subjective truth. 

Returning to where we began, in Old English, the term “Word-hoard” meant the unique vocabulary that each person individually possessed and could use to describe reality. If great men like Aristotle could use their “word-hoard” and experience to write works like the Rhetoric or Nicomachean Ethics, and Dante could write a poem like the Divine Comedy, and Tolkien could write The Lord of the Rings without AI and without getting rid of the hard work and sweat that was necessary to get there, why do we need an unnecessary handicap? These men did not cower from a challenge; they embraced it and used their challenges to be the men that they are known to be. Man does not find glory by shrinking from the fight; he finds glory by charging headfirst with the wisdom that he must overcome many challenges before he can reach the standard of the enemy and declare victory.

AI might shield us from challenges, but it does not help us reach the goal of being a good writer. I wish to leave you with the thoughts of Dr. Shick, who warned that “the authentic voice of the author will become watered down the longer that AI is present.” If that is the probable future, then I only assert that if reason is what makes us human, let’s not trade it for ease.