Schools ban AI like ChatGPT fearing it's a tool for cheating, but this is profoundly shortsighted. The quality of an AI's output is entirely dependent on the critical thinking behind the user's input. This makes AI the first truly scalable tool for teaching children how to think critically, a skill far more valuable than memorization.

New features in Google's Notebook LM, like generating quizzes and open-ended questions from user notes, represent a significant evolution for AI in education. Instead of just providing answers, the tool is designed to teach the problem-solving process itself. This fosters deeper understanding, a critical capability that many educational institutions are overlooking.

ASU's president argues that if an AI can answer an assignment, the assignment has failed. The educator's role must evolve to use AI to 'up the game,' forcing students to ask more sophisticated questions, making the quality of the query—not the synthesized answer—the hallmark of learning.

In an age where AI can produce passable work, an educator's primary role shifts. Instead of focusing solely on the mechanics of a skill like writing, the more crucial and AI-proof job is to inspire students and convince them of the intrinsic value of learning that skill for themselves.

An AI education system deployed to millions of students will continuously analyze patterns in their learning. Insights from a student in one country will instantly update the teaching algorithm for another, creating a massively scalable, personalized, and ever-improving educational model.

While cheating is a concern, a more insidious danger is students using AI to bypass deep cognitive engagement. They can produce correct answers without retaining knowledge, creating a cumulative learning deficit that is difficult to detect and remedy.

Instead of policing AI use, a novel strategy is for teachers to show students what AI produces on an assignment and grade it as a 'B-'. This sets a clear baseline, reframing AI as a starting point and challenging students to use human creativity and critical thinking to achieve a higher grade.

National tests in Sweden revealed human evaluators for oral exams were shockingly inconsistent, sometimes performing worse than random chance. While AI grading has its own biases, they can be identified and systematically adjusted, unlike hidden human subjectivity.

Generative AI's appeal highlights a systemic issue in education. When grades—impacting financial aid and job prospects—are tied solely to finished products, students rationally use tools that shortcut the learning process to achieve the desired outcome under immense pressure from other life stressors.