What are the key purposes of human writing?

As another school year returns, large language models (LLMs) present difficult questions around learning, thinking, plagiarism and authorship for educators. New approaches to assignments and assessment are required. Student papers that use LLM technology require additional labour on many fronts. Professors have expressed frustration, worry and anxiety.

As an assistant professor of English whose research has focused on the histories of writing and how it's taught, I have been involved in many discussions at institutions of higher learning about this topic. The immediate issue of LLMs in the classroom points to a larger reality.

For too long, instructors and universities have been treating students' writing difficulties as a deficiency in the mind — instead of confronting the truth that writing, as a technology for thinking, is cognitively demanding.

Writing is a technology that helps us understand our own ideas better. Where people are involved in thinking and invention — including at universities — it needs to be taught in that spirit. Why consider AI output ‘writing?' Given what LLM technology actually does and does not do, why do we even consider it writing — as in, “they used an LLM to write their assignment?”

LLM technology creates — at best — a facsimile of a textual object, meaning that based on its training on existing texts, it can create output that resembles a “text.” When generated for the purpose of a university assignment, it resembles the standard academic English that has ruled the academy (historical and present-day institutions of higher learning including colleges, technical schools and universities) and has been endowed with a special relationship to truth.

I've seen anger and frustration expressed towards the student who uses LLM output in their writing process or submitted work. The reason seems to be that it undermines that special relationship to truth that academic writing has long held. The artificial output reveals that academic writing is not an “absolute.” Rather, the LLM shows us how academic writing is a social construction. But academia at large has long resisted acknowledging this.