Deliverable: Essay Package on AI & Young People

Status: needs review

What it is

A concise, reflective, ethically engaged essay (≤1,500 words) that examines the dangers to young people, especially university students, of outsourcing thinking to AI, and argues how responsible AI use can (and cannot) mitigate those dangers. Written in British English for an educated audience.

Intended audience & use

Primary: University students and educators; academic support staff; leaders of student services and peer-learning schemes.
Secondary: Parents, policymakers, and practitioners interested in responsible AI use in education.
Uses: Reading piece for seminars/workshops; prompt for campus debate; reference text for study skills and academic integrity guidance.

Core questions answered

Temptations that lead young people to outsource thinking to AI.
Dangers that follow (e.g., loss of agency, erosion of critical thinking, detachment from reality, exposure to incomplete/obsolete info, manipulation).
What “responsible AI use” means for students.
Whether (and under what conditions) responsible use mitigates the dangers.

Argument shape (high-level)

Claim: AI can either scaffold or supplant thinking.
Conditions for benefit: Clear purpose, transparency, human judgement preserved, verifiable sources, reflective practice, and institutional norms that reward learning over shortcuts.
Limits: Time pressure, assessment design, and weak epistemic habits can make “responsible use” a fig leaf for dependency.

Structure (final essay)

Title & abstract (100–150 words) — signalling scope and position.
Introduction — why outsourcing thinking matters now; who is at risk; the ethical lens.
Temptations — speed, confidence, convenience, grade-seeking, social/peer pressure.
Dangers — agency loss, critical-thinking decline, reality detachment, stale/incomplete info risks, manipulation vectors.
Responsible use — practical norms and behaviours (e.g., prompting as inquiry, verification habits, reflection logs, collaboration boundaries).
Counterpoints & limits — where “responsible” fails or needs institutional support.
Conclusion — a compact set of principles for students and educators; call to action.

Evidence & attribution

Sources:
- Internal project files for conceptual grounding (values/ethos and the problem framing).
- External: recent (last 3 years) academic, journalistic, and think-tank sources.
Attribution: Transparent citations (endnotes or reference list); direct quotations sparingly.

Voice & style

Reflective, fair-minded, and analytic; accessible without dumbing down.
Clear headings; short paragraphs; signposted argument.

Packaging & formats (what you receive)

Main essay — Markdown and PDF (camera-ready).
1-page brief — key points, dangers, and responsible-use principles (for handouts/slides).
Reference list — all sources cited, with links where appropriate.
Transparency note (≤200 words) — how sources were selected and checked; limits of evidence.

Acceptance criteria (definition of “done”)

Substance: Directly answers the four core questions; presents a clear position with justified limits.
Balance: Risks and mitigations treated even-handedly; counterarguments addressed.
Quality: Coherent structure; precise language; British English; ≤1,500 words (main essay).
Evidence: Mix of internal framing + recent external sources; citations are complete and transparent.
Usability: 1-page brief concise and faithful to the essay; files delivered in both Markdown and PDF.