Reflecting on Generative AI in Writing Studies

On November 30, 2022, OpenAI’s latest software, ChatGPT, was released, changing our society as we know it. Although simplified large language models (LLMs) were widely available prior to this launch, such as Siri by Apple, the rapid, widespread growth of ChatGPT, as well as its advanced abilities, was unprecedented. This marked the start of the “AI Boom,” as I like to call it.

In 2026, almost 4 years later, generative artificial intelligence is not only everywhere, but more capable than ever. In 2023, it was reported that 33% of organizations used generative artificial intelligence for at least one business function. In 2025, that number rose to a whopping 79% of organizations; a 46% increase in only a two-year time frame (McKinsey, 2025). This recent growth of generative artificial intelligence has already raised many questions and concerns surrounding the ethics of AI usage. The United Nations explains, “[profound ethical concerns] arise from the potential AI systems have to embed biases, contribute to climate degradation, threaten human rights and more” (UNESCO). Generative AI also opens the door to issues surrounding plagiarism, copyright, and intellectual property. This is especially prevalent in the world of higher education.

Sano-Franchini et al. 's “Refusing GenAI in Writing Studies” is a guide that dives into how we should approach generative AI in the world of writing studies, as well as broader higher education as a whole. It explains how we shouldn’t be averse to GenAI, but rather, should know how and when to properly utilize it, as well as being educated on the subject. The guide also elaborates on various types of generative AI “refusals,” this is done through ten Premises. There were two premises that stuck out to me in particular: Premise 4 and Premise 9.

Premise 4 states that “Writing studies as a discipline rejects punitive approaches to plagiarism and plagiarism surveillance.” This premise stuck out to me because it is a premise that I heavily align myself with. It is physically impossible for any text that generative AI produces to be 100% original. Depending on what prompt is entered, the AI software simply flips through the internet, stealing whatever snippets of text match the prompt best. At its core, writing studies, although technical, is still meant to serve as a form of self-expression. It’s a way for your voice to be heard and your opinions to be expressed. Therefore, writing studies is inherently anti-plagiarism. In my opinion, there is no world where stolen writing will have more power and influence than the original work of an individual.

Premise 9 states that “Writing studies must consider the environmental impacts of GenAI as well as other digital technologies that rely on massive datasets such as Zoom and Facebook.” This premise stuck out to me, as the impact of AI on the environment can already be seen locally.

Take Northern Virginia as an example. It takes an extreme amount of energy to support global AI usage; this energy is generated through data centers. Northern Virginia is a popular spot for data centers to be located, as the area already generates high levels of energy and connectivity. In fact, due to the extreme uptick of data centers in the area, parts of the region have earned the nickname “Data Center Alley.” Today, Northern Virginia has over 400 data centers, with more than 120 more currently in development (Data Center Map). Although many of these data centers have only been operating for a brief amount of time, the impact they have had on the environment is substantial. Studies from Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality have found that emissions from data centers “increased substantially in the region between 2015 and 2023. Carbon monoxide emissions increased by 196%, nitrous oxide emissions rose by 111%, and dangerous particulate matter emissions jumped by 139%,” (Reinsel 2026). The future of artificial intelligence is unprecedented. There’s a chance these emissions could continue to rise until it’s too late. Due to this, it makes sense why Sano-Franchini would include environmental impacts as a factor when discussing the ethics of generative AI.

Besides Sano-Franchini et al. 's “Refusing GenAI in Writing Studies,” there are many other articles that discuss, critique, and evaluate AI in the world of higher education. There was one, authored by Dr. Aviva Legatt, that stood out to me, titled “90% Of Faculty Say AI Is Weakening Student Learning: How Higher Ed Can Reverse It.” I thought this article was interesting as it brought to light some of the issues occurring with AI’s integration into the higher education field; rather than arguing AI in education as a whole is bad, the author claims both students and higher education systems aren’t utilizing AI the way they should. She then goes on to list ways for institutions to use AI, without compromising academic integrity and learning. It is important to note that the article’s author, Dr. Aviva Legatt, is also the founder of EdGenerative, an organization that supports AI adoption strategy for education. It is interesting to see the different approaches Sano-Franchini and Legatt took in their articles. While both discuss the ethicality of AI in higher education, Sano-Franchini states a list of refusals, disciplines, and considerations to keep in mind while using AI, while Legatt’s list focuses on the way we should actually use AI. After reading and evaluating both articles, it’s clear that, as time goes on, AI is going to continue to become more prevalent in higher education; the bigger question is how it will be integrated.

In both my academic and professional life, I wouldn’t consider myself to be a frequent user of AI tools. In fact, there are only two scenarios I can think of. The first only applies to an academic setting. If I am given a prompt for an assignment and either the wording is weird or I don’t understand what’s being asked, I’ll ask AI to help clarify or break down the subject. The only other time I’ll use AI is for editing purposes. If I think a sentence looks weird, or the punctuation looks off, I’ll ask AI to double-check it. I feel comfortable using GenAI in this manner because there is no plagiarism involved, and it doesn’t alter the arguments I am trying to make. Other than that, I try to avoid AI use. I know many people like to use it to aid in writing, research, and finding information. Utilizing AI in that way not only feels like plagiarism and morally wrong, but is also a waste of time. As a former Lincoln-Douglas debater in high school, I feel way more confident in my research and writing abilities than those of any robot. Over the years, I have developed certain styles, structures, vocabulary, and other elements into my writing. Artificial intelligence simply cannot naturally develop styles and nuances in that way.

The vast unknown regarding the future of generative AI in higher education can be very intimidating. The harsh reality, though, is that AI has been and will continue to be incorporated into higher education. This new inclusion of AI in education has the chance to be either detrimental to writing studies or extremely beneficial. On one hand, I fear that AI could serve as a total job killer in the writing world. It feels like every day I’m seeing a new article discussing the detrimental impacts AI has had on entry-level jobs. If we take a more optimistic stance, AI could, at most, serve as a helpful tool. I like to believe that there’s a power behind words and writing that could never be replicated by a computer. Instead of replacing writers, generative AI may simply function as an overly complicated grammar checker. As of right now, it is simply too up-in-the-air to determine what the future holds.

I graduated high school in May of 2023; that means that the start of my first year at James Madison University aligns almost perfectly with the rise in popularity of ChatGPT and other generative AI software. In a way, I almost feel lucky because of this, because I have had the unique opportunity to experience higher education during various stages of AI growth. This has given me, not just a general understanding of AI, but also a deeper look into how AI has shifted higher education. I am almost certain that this trend will continue throughout the rest of my time here at JMU. Although it is difficult to estimate how advanced generative AI will be over a year from now, my goal is to continue academically the same way I always have, while also managing to stay up-to-date with the latest AI trends. In the world of WRTC, I urge both professors and students to follow suit. If we completely deny and avoid AI, we are going to fall behind from the rest of the world; if we embrace AI too much, there are extremely detrimental impacts.

The bottom line is that as time passes, AI is going to continue to advance and impact our society. At the same time, I believe that it will be up to us as people, as a humane society, to ensure that AI is only being used in ethical ways. We are already starting to see accountability like this happening; take the generative video platform, Sora AI, for example. Not even two years after its initial release, the software is already being shut down by OpenAI. The world of AI is so new and ever-changing that there’s no way to accurately speculate what the future holds. In my opinion, there’s no point in constantly stressing out and preparing for something so unknown. Overall, my hope for the future is that even if AI becomes heavily integrated into our day-to-day lives, our society still places the same emphasis on creativity, originality, and humanity.