Up until very recently, we were members of a small and select group of individuals who were able to write academic papers in their areas of expertise. Writing papers is a central component of our professional activity. The uniqueness of our skill – and the tremendous effort required to acquire it – secured our social and intellectual standing.

But then generative AI happened! According to experts in the field, AI capabilities are now already comparable to those of outstanding PhD students, and it won’t be long before they match, and even surpass, the abilities of excellent researchers. Based on these assessments, the answer to the question in the title seems to be this: AI should replace us (or at least most of us). Let’s call this “the Bleak Answer.”

This paper argues that the Bleak Answer is mistaken not on account of its technological forecasts (which we will grant for the sake of this talk), but because of its underlying assumption concerning the value of academic activity.

First, we will examine the conditions under which technology renders a skill obsolete. We will see that when the value of an activity lies predominantly in its product, the value of the process is primarily instrumental and so technological advances might undercut the value of the relevant skill. However, there are activities whose value lies in the process itself. E.g., the value of running a marathon lies not in reaching the finish line – something one can do quickly and easily in a car – but in the process of running 42 km. The process itself is valuable.

In much the same way that the availability of cars does not undermine the value of running a marathon, so, too, the availability of AI that can generate excellent academic papers will not undermine the value of academic work if the value of academic work lies not in the product but in the process. In fact, the burgeoning AI revolution can help us to see why we should not locate the value of academia in academic output; The Bleak Answer seems to lead to absurdity: what value could there possibly be in academic papers written by AI and for AI? Thus, the AI revolution should motivate us to re-examine where the real value of academic work resides and to rethink and reshape academia so that those values are recognized and promoted in both research and teaching activities. The paper advocates an Optimistic Answer to the question in the title – namely, that the emergence of generative AI could steer us towards an academy in the spirit of Socrates.

Keywords: Generative AI, Academia, higher education, value.