Parents aren’t wrong to worry, but they may be aiming at the wrong target.

AI didn’t break education, it exposed what was already fragile.

Protecting human thought doesn’t mean pushing technology away.

There's a rebellion forming in classrooms and dining rooms. Parents are opting their children out of school-issued laptops and are asking teachers to return to pen and paper. In a recent report, families described a growing discomfort with this digital imperative in education. Importantly, this is less about the logistical aspects of technology and more about something universal: Control. These instincts seem reasonable. Screens distract, and artificial intelligence hovers over homework like an invisible, or worse, a co-conspirator in cheating. If the tool seems to distort the learning process, remove the AI.

It would be easy to dismiss this reaction as technophobia, but that would be lazy. While the anxiety underneath it is real, the object of resistance may not be at the heart of this disruption.

The Echo of the First Luddites

The original Luddites weren't irrational men smashing machinery as a reaction to innovation. They were skilled workers responding to a system that threatened both craft and identity. Automation altered the economic logic of their world, and with it, their sense of agency. Today’s backlash carries a similar emotional tone. When a student can generate a complete essay in seconds, the relationship between effort and understanding begins to feel rather precarious if not unstable. The "academic output" no longer guarantees the cognition behind it. The natural response is retreat, restore the notebook, and remove the device.

A Misdiagnosed Threat

Artificial intelligence isn't simply a more efficient loom. It does not replace muscle, but reframes cognition. In earlier essays, I have argued that AI should not be treated as an immature version of human intelligence waiting to evolve. Its architecture is fundamentally different. It recognizes patterns without biography and generates language without living inside its consequences. This difference matters because it's the source of both power and discomfort.

Today's current educational backlash seems to assume that the presence of AI is the problem. I am not convinced. The deeper issue may be that education has long equated thinking with the production of visible and tangible endpoints. Essays, problem sets, and exams have long served as proxies for understanding. AI exposes how fragile those proxies always were. When a machine can produce the "surface signals" of reasoning, we are forced to confront the possibility that we were measuring output rather than judgment all along. This perspective is well captured when students "study for the test" but fail to grow academically.

Preservation Without Withdrawal

Returning to pen and paper may feel like we're reclaiming authenticity, but handwriting alone does not guarantee depth. A handwritten paragraph can be just as mechanical as a generated one if the underlying model of learning remains unchanged. And the debate over writing versus the keyboard is still very active today. But the discomfort we feel may not be about devices and that keyboard at all. It may be about the realization that we have never clearly defined what human thinking is meant to cultivate.

The answer isn't seamless integration or some type of nostalgic withdrawal. The better answer requires preserving the distinction between architectures of thought. Let's unpack that a little bit. Human cognition unfolds through continuity and is shaped by lived consequences. Artificial systems operate without this human biography and without any existential stakes. When these modes collapse into one another, as we're seeing today, thinking also collapses or flattens. When they remain distinct, in what I've called parallax cognition, contrast creates depth. The dynamics of our embodied judgment and AI's pattern recognition, kept separate but engaged, become instructive rather than corrosive.

The Harder Question Beneath the Opt-Out Form

The next generation Luddite is not irrational. And the impulse to protect human cognition in the context of education is honorable. What requires reconsideration is the belief that removal restores integrity. Artificial intelligence has forced a reckoning that I think was already overdue. We are beginning to mistake fluency for understanding and the production of answers with the cultivation of discernment. And this issue is becoming apparent as a tangible construct and an emotional response. And this is particularly true in the fragile dynamics of educating our children.

The debate over laptops is just a surface symptom. Beneath it lies a harder question, and it's one that no ban or opt-out form will resolve. In an era when machines can generate language that resembles thought, we need to reclaim ownership of what is distinctly human in the act of thinking. Reclaiming human thought in education does not require the exclusion of technology. It requires clarity about the difference.

Front Psychol. 2025 Feb. Exploring the effects of artificial intelligence on student and academic well-being in higher education: A mini-review. B. Klimova

See The Borrowed Mind: Reclaiming Human Thought in the Age of AI. Thought Leader Press; March 16, 2026.

© Psychology Today