AI and Writing Texts at University
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35305/rev.infosur.v2i4.113Keywords:
Academic Writing, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Higher Education, Academic Ethics, ChatGPTAbstract
The emergence of generative artificial intelligence in the university context has profoundly transformed academic writing practices, reshaping traditional notions of authorship, creativity, and assessment. This article offers a critical reflection on the impact of using large language models (such as ChatGPT and Claude) on the development of academic writing competencies. It analyzes the principles, scope, and limitations of generative artificial intelligence applied to writing tasks. It also examines the main ethical and pedagogical debates associated with its use, including issues related to automated IA writing detection, algorithmic bias, plagiarism, and authorship. Rather than adopting a technophobic or celebratory stance, the paper argues that artificial intelligence should not be understood as an absolute threat, but as a tool that requires specific forms of critical literacy. Finally, it highlights the need to rethink the teaching and assessment of academic writing from a process-oriented, ethical, and inclusive perspective, integrating AI as a pedagogical assistant under conditions of conscious, transparent, and responsible use.
Downloads
References
·Boddington, P. (2023) AI Ethics: A Textbook. Springer.
·Canagarajah, A. S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. University of Pittsburgh Press.
·Carlino, P. (2005). Escribir, leer y aprender en la universidad: Una introducción a la alfabetización académica. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
·Carlino, P. (2013). Alfabetización académica diez años después. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 18(58), 355–381. http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-66662013000200003&lng=es&nrm=iso>. ISSN 1405-6666.
·Casal, J. E., & Kessler, M. (2023). Can linguists distinguish between ChatGPT/AI and human writing? A study of research ethics and academic publishing. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmal.2023.100068
·Case, C. M. (1928). Scholarship in Sociology. Sociology and Social Research. 12 (4): 323–340.
·Castelló, M. (2013). La escritura académica en la universidad. REDU. Revista De Docencia Universitaria, 11(1), 17–36. https://doi.org/10.4995/redu.2013.5590
·Charniak, E. (2024). AI and I: An Intellectual History of Artificial Intelligence. MIT Press.
·Choi, J. H., Hickman, K. E., Monahan, A., & Schwarcz, D. (2023). ChatGPT goes to law school. Journal of Legal Education, 72(1), 1–27. Disponible en http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4335905
·Cotton, D., Cotton, P., & Shipway, J. (2023). Chatting and cheating: Ensuring academic integrity in the era of ChatGPT. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(2), 1–11. https://doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2190148
·Dirección Nacional de Evaluación, Información y Estadística Educativa. (2022). Informe nacional de indicadores educativos: Situación y evolución del derecho a la educación en Argentina (1.ª ed.). Ministerio de Educación de la Nación.
·Edwards, B. (14 de Julio de 2023) Why AI detectors think the US Constitution was written by AI. Ars Technica. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/07/why-ai-detectors-think-the-us-constitution-was-written-by-ai/
·Brittain, B. (24 de Abril de 2023). Corte Suprema EEUU rechaza demanda de informático sobre derechos de autor de creaciones generadas por IA. Infobae. https://www.infobae.com/america/agencias/2023/04/24/corte-suprema-eeuu-rechaza-demanda-de-informatico-sobre-derechos-de-autor-de-creaciones-generadas-por-ia/
·Erol, G., Ergen, A., Gülşen Erol, B., Kaya Ergen, Ş., Bora, T. S., Çölgeçen, A. D., Araz, B., Şahin, C., Bostancı, G., Kılıç, İ., Macit, Z. B., Sevgi, U. T., & Güngör, A. (2025). Can we trust academic AI detective? Accuracy and limitations of AI-output detectors. Acta Neurochirurgica, 167(1), 214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-025-06622-4
·Foltýnek, T., Dlabolová, D., Anohina-Naumeca, A., & colegas. (2020). Testing of support tools for plagiarism detection. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 46. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.04279
·Gad-El-Hak, M. (2004). "Publish or Perish—An Ailing Enterprise?". Physics Today. 57 (3): 61–62. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1712503
·Hayles, N. K. (2017). Unthought: The Power of the Cognitive Nonconscious. University of Chicago Press.
·laif, Zuheir. (2024). “Rethinking Educational Assessment in the Age of Artificial Intelligence” en Fostering Inclusive Education With AI and Emerging Technologies. IGI Global
·Liang, W., Yuksekgonul, M., Mao, Y., Wu, E., &Zou, J. (2023). GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers. Patterns, 4(7), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2304.02819
·Lieto, A. (2021). Cognitive Design for Artificial Minds. London. Routledge.
·Miao, J., Thongprayoon, C., Suppadungsuk, S., Garcia Valencia, O. A., Qureshi, F., & Cheungpasitporn, W. (2024). Ethical Dilemmas in Using AI for Academic Writing and an Example Framework for Peer Review in Nephrology Academia: A Narrative Review. Clinics and Practice, 14(1), 89-105. https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract14010008
·Nature Editorial. (2023). Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1
·Paglia, C. (1992). Sex, Art and American Culture: New Essays. Vintage.
·Platón (2020). Fedro. Gredos
·Searle, J. R. (1980). Minds, brains, and programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
·Spennemann, D. HR. (2025). "Delving into" the quantification of Ai-generated content on the internet (synthetic data). (pp. 1-9). (arXiv). https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.08755
·van Wesel M. (2016). Evaluation by Citation: Trends in Publication Behavior, Evaluation Criteria, and the Strive for High Impact Publications. Science and engineering ethics, 22(1), 199–225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9638-0
·Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł., &Polosukhin, I. (2017). Attention is all you need. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998–6008. Disponible en https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762
·Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., MaribethRauh, Conor Griffin, Po-Sen Huang, John Mellor, Amelia Glaese, Myra Cheng, BorjaBalle, AtoosaKasirzadeh, Courtney Biles, Sasha Brown, Zac Kenton, Will Hawkins, Tom Stepleton, AbebaBirhane, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Laura Rimell, William Isaac, Julia Haas, Sean Legassick, Geoffrey Irving, and Iason Gabriel. 2022. Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models. en Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (FAccT '22). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 214–229.
·Yeo, M. M. L., &Loke, W. M. (2022). Artificial intelligence in academic writing: An exploratory study of student and educator perspectives. Education and Information Technologies, 27(3), 141–181. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2025.17.01.06
