AI literacy won’t save us: a reply to Bannister (2025)

Abstract

ABSTRACT In a recent article, Bannister [2025. ParadAIse L0st? Higher Education Research & Development, 1–10] makes a compelling argument that a point of no return has been reached with generative AI (genAI) and that a focus on genAI literacy and human stewardship of writing represents a positive way forward. In this article, we broadly agree with this position, but argue that genAI literacy is insufficient to mitigate the harms of genAI. To do so, we make three claims. First, the ‘witch hunt’ framing of responses to genAI is often a straw man. Second, early evidence suggests that genAI is negatively impacting academic literacy. Third, genAI is already having negative impacts on academic writing, discourse, publishing and peer review. We conclude that while literacy is important, it should not distract from the potential harms of AI.