Gen AI for a generative or a creative generation: A gesture of a materialist orientation to contemporary L2 writing?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64268/inspire.v1i2.65Keywords:
Academic Writing, Creative Agency, Generative Artificial Intelligence, L2 Writing, Materialist OrientationAbstract
Background: In this age of omnipresent celebration of generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) in education, what will happen to humans’ naturally acquired intelligence may be a million-dollar question. From the long-termism perspective and existential and humanistic worldviews, this question stands very relevant and legitimate.
Aims: This paper aims to philosophically pose questions as regards the uncritical uses of Gen AI tools and deconstruct the meaning of AI-integrated writing, positing the phenomenon in the generational concern and futurism with the potential formation of writing habitus.
Methods: By applying the method of theoretical reflection, this study employs a philosophical analysis and critically engages with the extant literature on GenAI-integrated academic writing. By doing so, the paper brings up the potential materialist perspectives on writing within the emerging discourse around the dominant orientations towards GenAI-assisted writing and thus interprets the implications for writers’ creative agency and cognitive contribution.
Result: The analysis reveals that students (digital natives) of the present generation may exhibit a syndrome of being easily gravitated into the materialistic quicksand of the so-called “textual generation” while keeping themselves as “cognitive absentees” in the process of writing as a “knowledge creation.” Students’ overindulgence in availing Chat GPT’s generative service may develop a materialistic “generative habit” in students characterizing them as “faithful slaves” to Gen AI labor and as “intelligent dwarfs.” If this decoupling of natural intelligence from writing keeps fossilizing, the whole generation of student writers may turn into the “practitioners” of GenAI-assisted generation of contents and “escapists” and “skeptics” of creation of knowledge based on the contingency of natural human intelligence.
Conclusion: The paper, therefore, advocates that it is high time to bypass the shortsighted, neoliberal triumph of writing as a GenAI-supported product or commodity for attaining marks and grades and, thus, reclaim the dignity and creative credits of students’ real scholarship by reorienting writing as a human intelligence-centric creation of real knowledge.
References
Alam, M. S., & Asmawi, A. (2023). Chat GPT in constructivist language pedagogy: Exploring its potential and challenges in legal vocabulary acquisition. Applied Research on English Language, 12(4), 131-148. https://10.22108/are.2024.139708.2188
Alam, M. S., Asmawi, A., Haque, M. H., Patwary, M. N., Ullah, M. M., & Fatema, S. (2024). Distinguishing between Student-Authored and ChatGPT-Generated Texts: A Preliminary Exploration of HumanEvaluation Techniques. Iraqi Journal for Computer Science and Mathematics, 5(3), 40. https://doi.org/10.52866/ijcsm.2024.05.03.016
Attaluri, V., & Mudunuri, L. N. R. (2025). Generative AI for Creative Learning Content Creation: Project-Based Learning and Art Generation. In Smart Education and Sustainable Learning Environments in Smart Cities (pp. 239-252). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.
Carroll, J. E. (2019). Epistemic explanations for divergent evolution in discourses regarding students’ extended historical writing in England. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(1), 100-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1499805
Cazzaniga, M., Jaumotte, M. F., Li, L., Melina, M. G., Panton, A. J., Pizzinelli, C., ... & Tavares, M. M. M. (2024). Gen-AI: Artificial intelligence and the future of work. International Monetary Fund.
Giannakos, M., Azevedo, R., Brusilovsky, P., Cukurova, M., Dimitriadis, Y., Hernandez-Leo, D., ... & Rienties, B. (2025). The promise and challenges of generative AI in education. Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(11), 2518-2544. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2024.2394886
Ironsi, C. S., & Solomon Ironsi, S. (2025). Experimental evidence for the efficacy of generative AI in improving students’ writing skills. Quality assurance in education, 33(2), 237-252. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2024-0065
Jin, J., Yang, M., Hu, H., Guo, X., Luo, J., & Liu, Y. (2025). Empowering design innovation using AI-generated content. Journal of Engineering Design, 36(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2024.2401751
Kim, J., Yu, S., Detrick, R., & Li, N. (2025). Exploring students’ perspectives on Generative AI-assisted academic writing. Education and Information Technologies, 30(1), 1265-1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12878-7
Paltridge, B., & Starfield, S. (2020). Change and continuity in thesis and dissertation writing: The evolution of an academic genre. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 48, 100910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100910
Pratschke, B. M. (2024). Generative AI and education: Digital pedagogies, teaching innovation and learning design. Springer Nature.
Prestridge, S., Fry, K., & Kim, E. J. A. (2025). Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs for Gen AI use in secondary school. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 34(2), 183-199.
Sison, A. J. G., Daza, M. T., Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Garrido-Merchán, E. C. (2024). ChatGPT: More than a “weapon of mass deception” ethical challenges and responses from the human-centered artificial intelligence (HCAI) perspective. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 40(17), 4853-4872. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2225931
Soyupak, O., & Ipek, H. (2025). Exploring user experience and usability of mobile and open banking for digital natives in Turkiye. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets. Vol. Ahed-of-print, No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-02-2024-0051
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Md. Saiful Alam, Adelina Asmawi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.