(image: youtube.com)
Pati pagbati, AI na!
There was music playing that suddenly
caught my attention: a cover of Sharon Cuneta’s “Bituing Walang Ningning.” It
was sung so beautifully, so smoothly, like butter melting on warm skin.
Curious, I searched for the source and discovered an entire trove of covered
OPM songs. Each one was impeccable. The pitch, the phrasing, the musicality, almost
disturbingly perfect.
Then it struck me: why the perfection?
That was the moment of realization.
These songs were not performed by human voices but generated through Artificial
Intelligence. And just like that, my senses were thrown into disarray. If music,
once the most intimate expression of human emotion, can now be replicated with
such precision, what does that mean for performance, for artistry, for
authenticity?
Music is being quietly invaded by AI,
and the unsettling question lingers: what’s next?
This unease is mirrored in education.
There is a growing trend among universities and higher education institutions
to administer examinations and assessments in oral form. This shift aims to
assure professors that the ideas, insights, and reasoning being presented
genuinely originate from the learners themselves rather than from AI-generated
engines. By foregrounding spontaneous articulation, critical thinking, and
real-time reasoning, oral assessments attempt to reclaim authenticity in an era
increasingly shaped by artificial intelligence.
Of course, we appreciate AI. It relieves
us of tedious tasks, and the very intention behind its invention, to make work
easier and more efficient, is a gift in itself. However, when people begin to
allow AI to think on their behalf, when learners merely type prompts to
generate answers without engaging in understanding, reflection, and
intellectual struggle, the narrative changes entirely. At that point,
convenience risks replacing learning, and assistance quietly turns into
dependency.
This concern is not merely personal but
scholarly. While artificial intelligence offers significant support in
streamlining academic tasks, researchers caution that its uncritical use may
undermine deep learning and cognitive engagement. When learners rely
excessively on AI-generated outputs, they risk bypassing essential processes
such as critical thinking, synthesis, and conceptual understanding. Rather than
serving as a scaffold for learning, AI may become a substitute for intellectual
effort if not guided by pedagogical frameworks that foreground human agency,
reflection, and ethical use (Kasneci et al., 2023).
Music, education, and even laboratory
results are now being uploaded into AI engines for analysis and interpretation.
While these technologies offer speed and efficiency, they also pose a quiet
threat when dependence begins to replace discernment and judgment. This reality
calls for a critical discourse that moves toward humanizing AI, where
technology remains a tool guided by human ethics, intention, and
responsibility. In the end, it must still be people who decide, question, and
think, not the other way around.
The moment we stop thinking because
machines can, we begin forgetting what it means to be human.







