The first batch of people who have finished college with ChatGPT are about to graduate. Four years ago, when they first entered campus, generative AI was like a new toy that suddenly broke into the classroom; four years later, it has become the default tool for many students to write papers, check information, do projects, and revise resumes. For this generation of American college graduates, AI is not extracurricular tutoring, but a part of college life.

This is why "Business Insider" calls them the "CollegeGPT Generation."


But what is really worth asking is not whether they use AI. Resumes can be polished, portfolios can be packaged, and class discussions can be temporarily supported by AI. All of these can be passed on campus. But when they walked into the interview room and office, the test really began. When there is no standard answer, can you judge the problem, bear the consequences, and express your own thoughts.

This generation is raised by AI, but is it ability or dependence?

1. “Einstein” disappeared, but “power leveling” has become popular

22-year-old Advait Paliwal was a computer science student two years ago. In a small experiment that got him into controversy, he developed an AI tool called "Einstein."

This is more than just a chatbot. As long as you enter your campus network account and password, Einstein can log in to Canvas, the mainstream teaching management platform of American universities, automatically download courseware, understand assignment requirements, and even attend online lectures, write papers, and submit assignments on your behalf.

Paliwal initially just wanted to save some effort for friends who were overwhelmed by courses, but he did not expect that this tool would become popular quickly, with peak users reaching 100,000. In the end, Canvas' parent company sent a lawyer's letter, and Einstein was forced to remove it from the market.

But Paliwal began to reflect: "If AI can complete all studies completely autonomously, what is the value of education?"

This problem is exactly what the graduates of 2026 must face. A Gallup poll last year showed that more than half of American colleges and universities have banned the use of AI. But the ban cannot stop the reality: more than half of the students also use it every week, and 20% of them use it every day. The latest statistics from the duplication checking software Turnitin are more direct. The number of papers judged to have "more than 80% of the content generated by AI" has increased fivefold in three years, from 3% in 2023 to 15% in 2025.

“A degree is just a degree, it doesn’t matter how you get it.” A message from a Reddit user expressed the collective voice of this generation of American college students.

2. From “transporting knowledge” to “replacement thinking”: Why is AI so different from search?

Behind Paliwal’s question, there is also a deeper problem hidden, that is, AI is changing the way humans use their brains.

Many people think that AI tools are just an upgrade of search tools, just as the previous generation switched from browsing library indexes to Google, and from paper encyclopedias to Wikipedia. But this analogy ignores an essential difference: Search tools change the efficiency of “finding information”, while generative AI changes the subject of “processing information”.

In the era of search, tools act as porters. No matter how much information you search on Google or Wikipedia, you still need to read, filter, summarize, and complete the logical stitching in your mind. The friction of this kind of thinking is always there, and the brain's executive control system must be involved throughout the process.

In contrast, generative AI has evolved from an auxiliary tool to an agent hub. It no longer gives you a pile of bricks to build a house, but directly delivers a beautifully finished house. When students input an instruction, AI instantly completes semantic association, logical conception and other activities that are originally core functions of the human brain in the background.

This comprehensive takeover of the logic construction process leads to the disappearance of the "cognitive closed loop". And when this outsourcing of thinking spreads from written assignments to face-to-face communication, even the originally active offline classes began to malfunction.

3. The eerie silence of the Yale seminar: the brain “smoothed” by AI

In a small seminar at Yale University, a student named Amanda observed a disturbing scene. There was a brief silence in the classroom when the professor asked an in-depth question about the reading material. Then, she saw the classmate on the left running her fingers quickly on the computer. She was not taking notes, but feeding questions to the AI.

“Now, everyone sounds exactly the same,” Amanda lamented.

She recalled that when she was a freshman, the seminars were always full of all kinds of weird, extreme and even naive but very personal opinions. Now, students are like repeaters produced by AI. They no longer try to understand the material, but pursue an infallible nonsense.

This phenomenon is called the outsourcing of thinking.

A study published by the University of Southern California in Trends in Cognitive Sciences provides an academic explanation for this phenomenon. Researchers used large language models to model probability distributions on massive cross-cultural texts and found that LLM essentially predicts the next most likely word based on statistics. By comparing AI-generated text with original human texts from different cultural backgrounds, the study found that AI output highly tends to the statistical median, thereby compressing the diversity of human cognition in the three dimensions of wording, perspective, and reasoning.

· Wording (Language): The choice of words and sentences has become highly standardized and mediocre.

· Perspective: AI tends to output the so-called "WEIRD" perspective (Western, educated, industrialized, wealthy, democratic). This single perspective is obliterating cultural diversity.

· Reasoning: Students no longer build their own logical chain, but directly adopt the steps given by AI. Jessica, a senior at Yale, feels the same way. She admitted that she has become lazy: "My work ethic is far worse now than it was in high school. Sometimes I want to comment, but I don't know how to organize the language, so I let AI help me 'appear more cohesive.'"

As a result, the discussions in the classroom became more and more fluid, but they became more and more like the same person talking. They can give a perfect answer in an instant, but it is difficult for them to have a truly deep thinking of their own without a screen.

4. The "demon mirror" in the workplace: Is it a "ruined generation" or the dawn of the "super individual"?

When such a group of graduates entered the workplace with full score resumes polished by AI, a tit-for-tat debate emerged in the public opinion field.

On the one hand, it’s a warning from employers.

On social platform X user NextPluse shared a typical case. The resumes of the fresh graduates who were interviewed were all proficient and full-stack, and even one person took over the front-end and back-end projects. But once you are asked to modify the code on the spot, you will immediately be blinded. “AI has covered up the emptiness of the underlying technology,” NextPluse lamented. “It has become a crutch instead of an auxiliary. When it comes to team collaboration and complex needs, AI will only be directed in front of the screen. Fresh graduates have no idea how to start.”


Investor Cha Li puts it more pointedly. He complained on X that he recruited a group of high-quality fresh graduates in the first quarter of 2025, but all of them were dismissed in the second quarter. The reason goes straight to the pain point: without AI, they have almost lost their basic work capabilities. The PPT is extremely beautiful but has empty logic. The video has a blockbuster quality but does not understand the composition of the scene. His conclusion is cold: "AI has already eliminated entry-level jobs, and those fresh graduates who can only use AI to complete entry-level jobs have also been eliminated."

TAG PH9

There is no large-scale data to support whether these cases represent a systemic trend, but the anxiety they reflect is indeed spreading among employers.

On the other hand, another voice is justifying the power of tools.

In the heated discussion about the impact of AI on the profession, many senior practitioners see the vitality after the educational framework is broken. In the actual testing of the management consulting industry in recent years, cases of using AI as intellectual leverage have been common, and it has even become a new assessment standard for junior analysts in leading companies. As blogger Huang Ming said, AI has indeed shattered the traditional ladder learning, but this is not necessarily a bad thing: "In the past, you had to learn from 1 to 10, but now you can directly find the right hammer to solve a nail." He pointed out that this class of students can bypass boring tool operations and directly enter the high-level fields of demand judgment, business understanding, and aesthetic choices.

For those young people who have been criticized for being inseparable from search and AI, there has also been a lot of support on social media. As netizen Mr Panda said: "We were criticized by our seniors back then, saying that writing code was inseparable from Google."

Many supporters also believe that the ability to use advanced tools is a core competitiveness in itself. If AI can be used to quickly obtain positive feedback and stimulate enthusiasm for solving real business problems, this is the first step towards becoming a super individual.

The core of this debate is not about whether to use AI, but about who is directing whom.

X user NextPluse believes: “It’s okay to get some positive feedback in the early stage of study, but you still have to be solid. Master the How and Why ”

Just like Creative. According to analysis by Marbles Consultancy, when routine knowledge work is compressed by AI, what really appreciates are human strengths such as judgment, creativity and adaptability.

The mirror of the workplace does not reflect the strength of AI, but how much hard-core support for independent thinking is left after users peel off the shell of the algorithm.

5. Reconstruction of education: Rediscovering the “friction of thinking” amid the AI ​​craze

Feedback from the workplace has returned to campus. Faced with the reality that students are increasingly relying on AI, many colleges and universities have begun to reintroduce links in teaching that cannot use AI.

“The dilemma of educators is how to let students use tools without being enslaved by tools.” said Shin Sun-joo, professor of philosophy at Yale University.

In order to deal with the intellectual inertia brought by AI, many prestigious schools have begun a seemingly retrograde teaching adjustment.

· The return of the “pen and paper era”: Since there is no way to verify that the work behind the screen was written by a student, professors are simply moving exams and important papers back to the classroom. Handwritten essays and timed closed-book exams are back in the mainstream. This physical disconnection is to allow the brain to go through the painful but necessary logical deduction process without assistance.

· The resurgence of oral examinations and live debates: Ancient assessment methods such as recitation and oral defense (Oral Exit Exams) are becoming popular again in colleges and universities such as Yale and Bard College. Through face-to-face questioning, the tutor peels off the rhetoric of AI embellishments and reaches the deepest level of students' cognition.

· Redefine “homework”: A study by MIT pointed out that students who over-relied on ChatGPT to write papers showed significant deterioration at the neurological and behavioral levels. Researchers found that when participants were asked to use AI to complete a writing task, the activity in areas of their brains responsible for executive control and deep semantic processing decreased significantly. But Duke University student Matthew Xu showed another possibility. He participated in the development of an application called Turbo AI, which can convert class notes into review tools such as blogs and flashcards; he himself also uses this application to break down concepts in history classes. As Matthew Xu said: "If AI takes over the entire homework and does everything, it is obviously cheating. But this is completely different from AI helping you think."

The core of these changes is to reintroduce friction in the learning process.

Former English teacher Daniel Buck believes that learning often occurs in that boring and struggling thinking gap. If the AI ​​gives a perfect answer instantly, students lose the opportunity to form their own understanding.

Colleges and universities are trying to reach a consensus that the university is no longer just a distribution station of knowledge, but a protected gym for the mind. Here, students can make mistakes, write awkward but original sentences, and engage in inefficient deep reading. Only by retaining this spark of independent thinking during college can they be promoted from AI puppets to real controllers after entering the workplace.

6. Conclusion: Is AI an auxiliary, or a crutch that makes you "actively disabled"?

In the era of “CollegeGPT”, should we completely deny AI?

Of course not. As Lynn Pasquerella, president of the Association of American Universities, said, AI makes personalized tutoring within reach and reduces the threshold for knowledge acquisition to a historical low. It can be a lifebuoy or a heavy yoke. The key is whether you are using it to "escape from thinking" or whether you are using it to "accelerate evolution."

The answer given by AI is essentially the safest and most error-free answer: correct, smooth, decent, but lacking in soul. In the future workplace, the most scarce thing will no longer be finding standard answers, but asking irreplaceable questions and insisting on one's own judgment when everyone is converging.

Those moments when you organize language awkwardly in class, struggle with logic between pen and paper, and repeatedly play games with complex documents late at night, which may seem inefficient, but they are precisely carving your own fingerprints on your brain.

The graduates of 2026 are standing at the intersection of an era. They are not only the generation most likely to steal knowledge, but also the first batch of AI digital natives in the true sense.

From plagiarism in the 1960s, to Internet retrieval in the 1990s, to today's generative AI, technical tools are constantly changing, but the requirement for people's independent thinking ability has never changed.

For the graduates of 2026, the real competition is not "who is better at writing prompt words", but whether you still have a pair of eyes that can penetrate the noise and identify real problems when the power is turned off and the screen is darkened.

After all, in a world where "everyone sounds the same", the person who dares to say "I don't think so" is the most irreplaceable.