When I first asked ChatGPT to outline my lecture, I felt the thrill of amplified creativity, but that lasted only in the first few times. Balancing AI’s power means acknowledging its role without letting it subsume ours. As Tang et al. remind us, “transparency in declaring the use of generative AI is vital to uphold the integrity and credibility of academic research writing.” ​

In practice, the grey zones are everywhere: Is summarizing primary sources with AI just good scaffolding or academic shortcut? Can we allow AI-driven captioning in class for accessibility but forbid it in formal assessments? Policies must draw clear boundaries, however it is difficult considering how little we know about AI extensibility. Transparent guidelines, akin to IRB declarations, could require students and faculty to note AI‑assisted sections, letting evaluators focus on original insight. AI could also be normalized as an assistive tool across all forms of assignments and in person discussion based evaluations might be prioritized instead.

Ultimately, defining “too much” is less about word count and more about intent. If AI amplifies human potential and honors ethical guardrails, it’s a tool; if it replaces responsibility, it’s overreach.