In an age when technology evolves at breathtaking speed, one of the most immediate and visible changes being felt across campuses, lecture halls and kitchens in the UK is the rise of ChatGPT. What started as a conversation-bot experiment has quickly presented itself as a significant tool for writing — whether that means drafting essays, writing assignments, or shaping ideas for academic work. As a member of a UK academic committee, I have observed emerging practices, ethical tensions and shifting attitudes: in this article I aim to provide a balanced public-facing commentary for UK readers on what it means to use ChatGPT in essay writing, and how students, educators and institutions might respond.
When ChatGPT first entered public consciousness, it was primarily spoken of in terms of chat-bots, conversation-partners or novelty-tools. Soon, however, students and academics began to experiment with it for writing tasks: drafting paragraphs, structuring arguments, generating outlines, polishing grammar and style. The appeal is obvious: it can save time, offer a “first draft”, and often generate language that appears fluent and polished.
For many UK students juggling deadlines, part-time jobs and social lives, the promise of a writing assistant can seem irresistible. For educators too, it raises the prospect of enhanced productivity and better expression. The tool can also level the playing field for non-native English speakers in UK universities, who often face additional burdens in producing written work.
However, the introduction of ChatGPT into the writing process is not a simple matter of convenience. It brings with it a complex set of questions: about academic integrity, about the nature of authorship, about the value of writing as learning, and about the broader role of artificial intelligence in education.
In practice, students in the UK are deploying ChatGPT in a variety of ways:
They might ask it to produce an essay-style draft on a given topic: “Write me 1,000 words on X”.
They might use it to generate an outline or key bullet-points, then develop those themselves.
They might submit text generated by ChatGPT with minimal editing as their own work.
They might use it as a proofreading and polishing tool: inputting their draft and asking ChatGPT to rewrite or improve it.
Each usage mode brings a different set of implications. The most benign scenario is the “draft + polish” model: the student does the thinking and research, uses ChatGPT to suggest a structure, then writes and edits accordingly. That can be a legitimate form of assistance. On the other hand, the “submit ChatGPT output with minimal change” model poses serious concerns about authorship, fairness and learning.
There are reports from educators in the UK and elsewhere that some students are using ChatGPT to generate essays that they submit as wholly their own. In such cases, the educational value of the exercise is greatly diminished — the student may avoid the hard work of research, organisation and critical thinking that writing demands. From the institutional perspective, it puts pressure on detection tools, academic misconduct policies and learning design.
At the heart of the debate is a fundamental question: what does it mean to write? In the UK higher-education context, writing an essay is not just about producing a polished document; it is about developing ideas, organising them coherently, critically reflecting, and demonstrating learning. If a student delegates significant portions of that process to an AI, has the student done the learning?
That question has several dimensions:
Authorship and originality: If work is generated by ChatGPT, how much of it can legitimately be claimed as the student’s own?
Fairness: If some students use ChatGPT and others do not, does it introduce an inequality of access? What if some students are unfamiliar with the tool or lack resources to use it?
Learning process: The act of writing – organising thoughts, reflecting, revising – is itself a form of learning. If ChatGPT bypasses that process, what is lost?
Academic misconduct: Many UK universities define plagiarism as submitting work that is not one’s own. If an AI produces the text, is it plagiarism? Universities are now debating how to describe such scenarios in policy.
Dependence: Might students become over-reliant on ChatGPT and devalue their own writing and thinking skills?
These concerns are not hypothetical. The very speed of AI-writing tools challenges existing institutional frameworks, raising questions for policy-makers, academics and students alike.
In balancing the risks, it is important to recognise that ChatGPT also offers genuine opportunities, particularly for UK students and educators:
It can act as a thinking partner, suggesting structures, raising questions and helping shape ideas at the early stage of a writing task.
It can improve accessibility: for non-native English speakers, or for those less confident in writing, ChatGPT can help with phrasing and style, offering a more equitable experience.
It can assist time-pressed students manage deadlines, enabling them to advance drafts faster, leaving more time for revision and reflection.
It can help educators design writing-aware assessments, by encouraging students to reflect on drafts, engage in revision, and adopt clearer feedback loops.
In other words, ChatGPT does not need to be seen only as a threat—it can be a tool. The challenge is to integrate it in a way that safeguards learning, fairness and academic integrity.
UK universities and academic committees are actively adapting. Some of the emerging responses include:
Updating plagiarism and academic misconduct policies to mention AI-generated text explicitly.
Designing assignments that are harder to delegate fully to ChatGPT: for example, by requiring reflective components, drafts, in-class elements and personalised tasks.
Using detection tools and educating students about the limitations of ChatGPT and the importance of personal authorship.
Encouraging students to use ChatGPT as a drafting tool, not a submission tool: i.e., to generate ideas but then critically engage, edit and personalise the work.
Offering workshops and guidance on how to write in an age of AI: helping students understand not just technology but the writing process, critical thinking and revision.
These measures reflect a growing recognition that technology will not disappear, and that institutions must both adapt and lead in shaping its use responsibly.
If you are a student in the UK considering using ChatGPT for your essay, here are some practical guidelines to consider:
Use it as a brainstorming assistant: Ask ChatGPT to suggest topics, draft an outline, list relevant factors or opposing viewpoints. Use that to help shape your own thinking.
Don’t submit its output verbatim: Treat the text it gives you as a first draft, which you must read, revise, critique and rewrite in your own voice.
Maintain your voice and argument: Ensure the final submission reflects your own thinking. Use ChatGPT’s suggestions to refine rather than replace your voice.
Check for accuracy and relevance: ChatGPT may produce plausible-sounding but incorrect facts. Always verify, cite sources properly and engage critically.
Document your process (where required): If your institution asks for a draft or revision history, make sure you show how you used ChatGPT as part of that process.
Use revision and proofreading: Use ChatGPT to suggest improvements in grammar or style but make sure you understand the changes and retain control of the content.
Engage with feedback: If your tutor gives feedback, revise further. The learning happens in the revision, not only in the generation.
By treating ChatGPT as a collaborative tool rather than a shortcut, you can benefit from its assistance while retaining integrity, learning and authorship.
For educators in the UK grappling with this new landscape, here are some reflections:
Design assessments that emphasise process: Include drafts, peer-review, reflective components, in-class writing or oral follow-up to reduce the reliance on tools like ChatGPT.
Educate students about AI and writing: Offer workshops or modules on how such tools work, their benefits and limitations, and how to engage with them ethically.
Update academic misconduct policies: Explicitly address the use of AI-writing tools, clarifying what is acceptable assistance and what constitutes unacceptable substitution of student work.
Use technology detection where appropriate: While no tool is perfect, being aware of AI-generated text can prompt conversations about authorship rather than simply punishment.
Promote writing as learning: Emphasise that writing is more than a deliverable—it is a thinking process. Help students reflect on why they write, how they revise and how feedback helps them improve.
Model good practice: If educators themselves use AI tools (for example in creating materials or feedback), be transparent about it and model ethical use.
Beyond the classroom, the expanding use of ChatGPT for writing has broader implications for UK higher education and society:
Quality of academic output: If students increasingly rely on AI for writing, will the overall standard of independent thinking decline? Higher education institutions must guard against any erosion of critical literacy.
Employment readiness: Employers expect graduates not only to submit work but to think, write and communicate clearly. Over-reliance on AI may undermine these skills.
Democratisation and inequality: While ChatGPT can help non-native speakers and those less confident in writing, it may also exacerbate inequality if only some students use it effectively or ethically.
Academic publishing and research: The trickle-down effect includes research culture: how do we ensure that authorship, originality and scholarly contribution remain meaningful in a world of generative AI?
Public trust and accreditation: Universities in the UK have a contract with society: they certify graduates as competent. If writing becomes heavily outsourced to AI behind the scenes, that contract may weaken.
Mind-set shift: This new era invites a shift from “write to submit” to “write to think and learn”. If students and institutions embrace this shift, writing becomes less a hurdle and more a vital part of education.
To be clear: I do not believe that ChatGPT should be banned or treated solely as a threat. Rather, I believe that the UK higher education community should embrace and guide its use—for the benefit of students, educators and society—but do so with intentionality, reflection and care.
For students, the message is: use ChatGPT, but use it wisely. Let it assist your thinking, not replace it. Let it support your writing, not supplant your voice.
For educators and institutions, the message is: adapt your assessments, update your policies, and above all teach writing as the learning process it truly is. Use this moment to re-emphasise the value of clarity, argument, revision and feedback.
For the broader society—and all of us who care about education—this is a moment of transition. The tools at our disposal are powerful; how we integrate them will shape not just how we write, but how we think, learn and participate in a knowledge society.
In the UK context, we should aim for creative partnership between human authors and AI assistants. We should celebrate writing as a craft, even as we wield new tools. Because ultimately, what matters is not simply the polished essay submitted—but the thinking behind it, the voice within it—and the learning journey it represents.
By acknowledging both the opportunities and the responsibilities, students, educators and institutions can navigate this era of AI-writing not with fear, but with agency, clarity and integrity.
