"Debate Over Normalising AI in Academic and Creative Writing"
Generative AI
AI systems that produce new text, images, or other content from patterns learned in training data.
Authorship
The attribution of creative or intellectual work to the person who directed its production, not necessarily every contributor.
A growing debate in academic and professional circles concerns whether AI-assisted writing should be treated as an ethical violation or as a legitimate extension of human authorship. The argument for normalisation rests on a historical analogy: in every domain, humans have always directed tools, from air fryers to firearms to research assistants, and claimed authorship of the outcome. The person who directs the tool, not the tool itself, has traditionally been assigned credit or blame. Yet when the tool is generative AI, this logic is suddenly reversed: the user is accused of forfeiting authorship rather than exercising it.
The article situates this resistance within a broader power structure. AI writing tools have quietly dismantled one of the most durable advantages in global knowledge production: native English fluency. A researcher from a non-Anglophone background can now produce polished academic prose without years of language training. This redistribution of what the article calls linguistic capital threatens an established hierarchy in which Western, English-language institutions have long served as the gatekeepers of legitimate scholarship.
The application of Artificial Intelligence as a dependable source of input for administrative rational decision-making is a debatable issue. Critically examine the statement from the ethical point of view.
Differentiate 'moral intuition' from 'moral reasoning' with suitable examples.
With the present state of development, Artificial Intelligence can effectively do which of the following?
1.Bring down electricity consumption in industrial units
2.Create meaningful short stories and songs
3.Disease diagnosis
4.Text-to-Speech Conversion
5.Wireless transmission of electrical energy
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Consider the following statements regarding global AI governance summits:
1.The AI Action Summit held in Paris in 2025 was co-chaired by India.
2.The Bletchley Park AI Safety Summit preceded both the Seoul AI Summit and the Paris AI Action Summit.
3.The New Delhi Declaration on AI Impact was structured around five Chakras (Pillars).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Consider the following statements regarding Large Language Models (LLMs):
1.LLMs assign probabilities to the next possible word and select the one with the highest probability.
2.LLMs use mathematical optimisation to minimise prediction errors during training.
3.LLMs inherently produce unbiased outputs because they are trained on large datasets.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Match the following AI governance summits with their correct locations:
List I (Summit) — List II (Location)
A.First AI Safety Summit (2023) — 1. Seoul
B.AI Summit (2024) — 2. Bletchley Park
C.AI Action Summit (2025) — 3. New Delhi
D.AI Impact Summit (2026) — 4. Paris
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account