In recent years, new tools have emerged that allow writers to draft and refine content with the assistance of artificial intelligence. As families become more aware of these tools, it is natural that questions arise regarding their proper use. Some wonder whether it is appropriate to rely on such tools in writing, whether their use compromises authorship, and whether work can still be considered genuine if artificial assistance is involved. These are reasonable questions, and they deserve a clear and careful answer.
At the Classical Liberal Arts Academy, we hold that the value of any written work lies not in the mechanical process by which it is produced, but in the truth of its content and the authority of the mind behind it. Writing is fundamentally an act of communication, by which one person expresses what he understands and judges to be true. For this reason, the essential question is not whether a tool has been used, but whether the ideas expressed are truly understood, examined, and affirmed by the author himself.
It is important to state clearly that the principles, philosophy, and message of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy do not depend upon modern technology. The Academy was founded in 2008, and its educational vision had already been developed through years of prior work in classical education, beginning in 2000. The ideas, methods, and principles that guide the CLAA were established and articulated long before the emergence of artificial intelligence tools. These tools have not shaped our philosophy; they are used, when appropriate, only to assist in communicating it.
If we consider the history of writing, it becomes clear that the use of assistance in composition is not something new. Authors have rarely worked in complete isolation. Teachers have dictated lessons to their students, philosophers have had their thoughts recorded by disciples, and clergy have relied on scribes and secretaries to preserve and distribute their writings. In more recent times, it has been common for business leaders, professors, and public figures to work with assistants and editors who help draft, revise, and refine their work. In all of these cases, the final product is attributed not to the one who physically writes the words, but to the one whose mind governs the content—who determines what is to be said, what is true, and what is worthy of publication.
Artificial intelligence, when used properly, functions in a similar way. It is not a source of authority, nor is it a teacher or a judge of truth. It is simply a tool that can assist in the expression of ideas. When used responsibly, the process remains clearly under the direction of the author. One begins with a defined intention—a topic to be explained, a set of ideas to be communicated, or a message to be shared. A draft may then be produced with the assistance of the tool, but this draft is only the beginning of the work. The author must read it carefully, correcting errors, clarifying what is unclear, and supplying what is missing. Through repeated revision and refinement, the content is brought into conformity with the author’s own understanding. Finally, the author performs a careful review of the language, structure, and illustrations, ensuring that the work reflects his own voice and judgment.
In such a process, the tool does not replace the author, but serves him. The responsibility for the final work remains entirely with the one who publishes it. Every claim must be understood, every statement must be judged, and every conclusion must be accepted as true by the author himself. If any question were raised about the content, the author must be able to explain and defend it without reliance on the tool that assisted in its drafting. This is what it means to be an author in the proper sense. Authorship does not consist in the act of typing words, but in taking responsibility for them.
It is necessary, however, to distinguish this proper use from an improper one. If a person were to generate content without understanding it, to publish ideas he has not examined, or to rely on a tool to supply not only expression but also substance, then the work would not truly be his. In such a case, the tool would no longer be assisting authorship, but replacing it. The result would not be the expression of a mind, but the repetition of words.
This is not the practice of the Classical Liberal Arts Academy. Our aim is not to produce content quickly or impressively, but to communicate truth clearly and faithfully. Any tool that assists in that work may be used, provided that it remains subordinate to human judgment and understanding, and that the author retains full responsibility for what is written.
It is also important to make a clear distinction with regard to students. The use of artificial intelligence described here applies only to content published by the headmaster for informational and instructional purposes on the CLAA website. It does not apply to student assignments. Students are engaged in a course of study ordered toward the formation of their intellects, and their writing assignments are an essential part of that formation. Through writing, they learn to understand, to judge, and to express truth clearly. For this reason, students are expected to complete their work independently, without the use of artificial intelligence tools to generate or compose their submissions. What may be appropriate as a tool for publication is not appropriate as a substitute for learning.
Some may object that AI-detection tools can identify whether a text has been generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While this is true in a limited sense, such tools do not—and cannot—determine authorship in its proper meaning. They analyze patterns in language and make probabilistic judgments about how a text was composed, but they cannot know who conceived the ideas, who judged their truth, or who stands behind the final content. A text may be drafted with assistance and still be fully the work of its author, just as a text may be written entirely by hand and yet contain ideas the writer does not truly understand. The external process does not determine the reality of authorship.
For this reason, the Classical Liberal Arts Academy does not judge published writing by whether tools were used, but by whether the work reflects genuine understanding, intellectual responsibility, and fidelity to truth. Families should be assured that all published materials are reviewed, revised, and approved with care, and that the use of modern tools does not diminish this responsibility, but rather increases the need for vigilance and discernment.
In the end, the question is not whether a tool has been used, but whether the work expresses a mind that understands and affirms what is written. When that condition is met, the work is authentic. When it is not, no tool—or absence of tools—can make it so.
Mr. William C. Michael, O.P.
Headmaster
Classical
