Filosoofilise kirjutamise kriis tehisaru ajastul
Keywords:
tehisaru, generatiivsed tekstirobotid, suured keelemudelid, kirjutamine, mõtlemine, kõrgharidus, filosoofia, humanitaariaAbstract
Empiirilised uuringud näitavad, et suurtel keelemudelitel põhinevad generatiivsed tekstirobotid suudavad genereerida inimese kirjutatud tekstist raskesti eristatavat teksti ning nende kasutamine on üliõpilaste seas laialt levinud. Kuna tekstirobotite kasutamist on keeruline tuvastada, seab see küsimärgi alla paljud senised õpetamis- ja hindamismeetodid ülikoolis. Artiklis käsitlen filosoofilise kirjutamise kriisi tehisaru ajastul ehk küsimust, kas ja miks peaks ülikoolis filosoofia üliõpilastelt jätkuvalt nõudma iseseisvaid kirjalikke töid. Lähtudes üha sagedamini kostuvast nurinast, et traditsioonilised õppetegevused nagu essee ja lõputöö kirjutamine on ajale jalgu jäänud, analüüsin tekstirobotite kasutamisega seotud ohte filosoofia õppimise kontekstis. Lähtun arusaamast, et filosoofiline kirjutamine ei ole pelgalt olemasolevate mõtete teksti kujule vormistamine, vaid filosoofilise mõtlemise keskne mehhanism, mille kaudu ilmnevad ja arenevad analüüsi-, argumenteerimis- ja metakognitiivsed oskused. Hariduslikest ja kognitiivteaduslikest uuringutes on teada, et aktiivset vaimset pingutust nõudvad õpiülesanded toetavad õppimist paremini kui passiivsed ülesanded. Kuna tehisaru kasutamine filosoofilise kirjutamise abivahendina võib muuta teksti autori passiivsemaks, võivad sellel olla õppimisele ebasoovitavad tagajärjed. Seetõttu tuleks teadvustada, et tehisaru kiire ja valimatu lõimimine õppeprotsessidesse võib ohustada ülikooli rolli iseseisvalt mõtlevaid kodanikke kujundava institutsioonina. Lahendus ei seisne ei kirjalikest ülesannetest loobumises ega tehisaru keelustamises, vaid iseseisva mõtlemise väärtustamises, üliõpilastega õppimise mehhanismide ja eesmärkide üle arutlemises ning sellise akadeemilise kultuuri loomises ja hoidmises, mis toetaks õppejõu ja üliõpilase vahelist usaldusel, aususel ja austusel põhinevat suhet.
References
Arnold, K. M., Umanath, S., Thio, K., Reilly, W. B., McDaniel, M. A., & Marsh, E. J. (2017). Understanding the cognitive processes involved in writing to learn. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(2), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000119
Aru, J. (2024, oktoober 7). Facilitating creativity and motivation. ENLIGHT Teaching & Learning Conference 2024. Suuline ettekanne.
Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classi-fication of educational goals: Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Technical Report. New York: David Mckay Company.
Chaka, C. (2024). Accuracy pecking order – How 30 AI detectors stack up in detecting generative artificial intelligence content in university English L1 and English L2 student essays. Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2024.7.1.33
Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The Extended Mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/58.1.7
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The Nature of Explanation. Cambridge University Press.
Digital Education Council. (2024). Digital Education Council Global AI Student Survey 2024. AI or Not AI: What Students Want. https://www.digitaleducationcouncil.com/post/digital-education-council-global-ai-student-survey-2024
Eastgar Garmonee, S., & Tinashe, B. P. (2025). Conversational AI and Customer Engagement: A Comprehensive Analysis of Chatbot Technology in Modern Business Applications. International Journal of Scientific and Management Research, 08(10), 504–515. https://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2025.81040
Goodier, M. (2025, juuni 15). Revealed: Thousands of UK university students caught cheating using AI. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/jun/15/thousands-of-uk-university-students-caught-cheating-using-ai-artificial-intelligence-survey
Greene, J. (2025). ChatGPT (software). Salem Press Encylopedia of Science. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/science/chatgpt-software (21.04.2025)
Guan, Q., & Han, Y. (2025). From AI to authorship: Exploring the use of LLM detection tools for calling on “originality” of students in academic environments. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 62(5), 1514–1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2025.2511062
Hansen, R., Prilop, C. N., Alsted Nielsen, T., Møller, K. L., Frøhlich Hougaard, R., & Büchert Lindberg, A. (2025). The effects of an AI feedback coach on students’ peer feedback quality, composition, and feedback experience. Tidsskriftet Læring og Medier (LOM), 17(31). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v17i31.148831
Heidari Darani, L., & Hosseinpour, N. (2019). Pedagogical utility of oral discussion versus collaborative drafting. English Teaching: Practice & Critique, 18(4), 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/ETPC-10-2018-0086
Hero, L.-M. (2024, oktoober 7). Design-based approach in teaching and its connection to foster student creativity and innovation. ENLIGHT Teaching & Learning Conference 2024.
Hill, K. (2025, mai 14). The Professors Are Using ChatGPT, and Some Students Aren’t Happy About It. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/14/technology/chatgpt-college-professors.html
Hübner, S., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2006). Prompting Cognitive and Metacognitive Processing in Writing-to-Learn Enhances Learning Outcomes. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 8. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6t560264
Kellogg, R. T. (2008). Training writing skills: A cognitive developmental perspective. Journal of Writing Research, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2008.01.01.1
Kosmyna, N., Hauptmann, E., Yuan, Y. T., Situ, J., Liao, X.-H., Beresnitzky, A. V., Braunstein, I., & Maes, P. (2025). Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt when Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task . https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2506.08872
Kotlyar, I., & Krasman, J. (2025). Student reactions to AI versus human feedback in teamwork skills assessment. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22(1), 57. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00555-9
Lee, H.-P. (Hank), Sarkar, A., Tankelevitch, L., Drosos, I., Rintel, S., Banks, R., & Wilson, N. (2025). The Impact of Generative AI on Critical Thinking: Self-Reported Reductions in Cognitive Effort and Confidence Effects From a Survey of Knowledge Workers. Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/3706598.3713778
Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Effects of structured small-group student talk as collaborative prewriting discussions on Chinese university EFL students’ individual writing: A quasi-experimental study. PLOS ONE, 16(5), e0251569. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251569
Lin, P. (2025). Why We’re Not Using AI in This Course, Despite Its Obvious Benefits. Patrick Lin’s Substack, 7.08.2025. https://emergingethics.substack.com/p/why-were-not-using-ai-in-this-course
Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). CHATGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74(5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
Luria, A. R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Harvard University Press.
Marche, S. (2022, detsember 6). The College Essay Is Dead. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2022/12/chatgpt-ai-writing-college-student-essays/672371/
Menary, R. (2007). Writing as thinking. Language Sciences, 29(5), 621–632. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2007.01.005
Menary, R. (Toim). (2010). The Extended Mind. MIT Press.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2010). Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities - Updated Edition. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc77dh6
Oatley, K., & Djikic, M. (2008). Writing as Thinking. Review of General Psychology, 12(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.12.1.9
Olson, D. R. (1996). Taxing memory: Writing, memory, and conceptual change. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 19(1), 158–158. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00042059
Olson, D. R., & Oatley, K. (2014). The Quotation Theory of Writing. Written Communication, 31(1), 4–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088313515164
Ong, W. J. (1992). Writing is a technology that restructures thought. P. A. Downing, S. D. Lima, & M. Noonan (Toim), Typological Studies in Language (Kd 21, lk 293–320). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.21.22ong
Pahwa, N. (2025). They have their doubts: What’s it like to be in school, trying not to use A.I. SLATE. https://slate.com/life/2025/07/ai-college-cheating-gemini-chatgpt-students-policy.html
Peng, X., Zhou, Y., He, B., Sun, L., & Sun, Y. (2023). Hidding the Ghostwriters: An Adversarial Evaluation of AI-Generated Student Essay Detection. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 10406–10419. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.644
Pérez-Núñez, A. (2023). Exploring the Potential of Generative AI (ChatGPT) for Foreign Language Instruction: Applications and Challenges. Hispania, 106(3), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpn.2023.a906568
Pääbo, H. (2026). Programmijuhtide mõttehommik 19.01.2026. Ettekande slaidid.
Rudolp, J., Tan, S., & Tan, S. (2023). ChatGPT: Bullshit spewer or the end of traditional assessments in higher education? Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2023.6.1.9
Scarfe, P., Watcham, K., Clarke, A., & Roesch, E. (2024). A real-world test of artificial intelligence infiltration of a university examinations system: A “Turing Test” case study. PLOS ONE, 19(6), e0305354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0305354
Schwitzgebel, E., Schwitzgebel, D., & Strasser, A. (2024). Creating a large language model of a philosopher. Mind & Language, 39(2), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12466
Sepp, I. (2024, juuni 25). Harno süüdistas Saaremaa koolilõpetajat AI abil eksami tegemises, kuid kaotas vaidluse. Saarte Hääl. https://saartehaal.postimees.ee/8047401/harno-suudistas-saaremaa-koolilopetajat-ai-abil-eksami-tegemises-kuid-kaotas-vaidluse
Strayhorn, T. L. (2025). College Students’ Use and Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence (AI): A Survey Study. Journal of College Student Development, 66(3), 319–326. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2025.a962923
Tartu Ülikool. (2025). Suunis tehisintellekti kasutamiseks õppetöös. Tartu Ülikool. https://ut.ee/et/sisu/suunis-tehisintellekti-kasutamiseks-oppetoos
Von Garrel, J., & Mayer, J. (2023). Artificial Intelligence in studies—Use of ChatGPT and AI-based tools among students in Germany. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 799. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02304-7
Waltzer, T., Pilegard, C., & Heyman, G. D. (2024). Can you spot the bot? Identifying AI-generated writing in college essays. International Journal for Educational Integrity, 20(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40979-024-00158-3
Yigci, D., Eryilmaz, M., Yetisen, A. K., Tasoglu, S., & Ozcan, A. (2025). Large Language Model‐Based Chatbots in Higher Education. Advanced Intelligent Systems, 7(3), 2400429. https://doi.org/10.1002/aisy.202400429
