Adapting Education in the Age of AI

Recently, discussions have intensified around topics such as adjustments in university majors, the impact of AI on creative industries, and the value of liberal arts and arts education. From the rapid iteration of AI video generation tools to AI short dramas and actors entering the public eye, intelligent technology is embedding itself more deeply than ever in the content production process. As of March 2026, the daily token usage in China has exceeded 140 trillion, marking a growth of over 1000 times since early 2024. This change indicates that artificial intelligence is no longer just a sporadic application of technology but is accelerating its penetration across a broader spectrum, continuously influencing creation methods, dissemination logic, and professional divisions. The discussions sparked by these changes have transcended the survival of specific disciplines, pointing to a more fundamental question: what kind of individuals should universities cultivate when knowledge production methods, content generation mechanisms, and industry operation logic are being restructured?

In fields such as design, film, and communication, these changes are particularly evident. On one hand, AI significantly lowers the barriers to content generation; on the other hand, skills like judgment, integration, cultural sensitivity, and responsiveness to reality have become more valuable than ever. Therefore, discussions about adjusting university education should not be limited to superficial modifications like professional transformations, course additions or removals, or tool replacements. Instead, they should return to the fundamental logic of education, rethinking how education can adapt and what it must uphold in the context of rapidly advancing technology.

Reevaluating Educational Logic in the Face of Technological Changes

The involvement of artificial intelligence in content production brings about deep adjustments in creative division of labor, capability structures, and collaboration methods. For relevant university majors, the advantages formed by reliance on expression training, production efficiency, and software proficiency are now facing reevaluation.

On one hand, in the context of ongoing technological intervention, what constitutes “core competencies” needs to be redefined. As the ability to generate content becomes a foundational skill, competencies related to problem definition, value discernment, aesthetic judgment, and complex situational assessment have become increasingly irreplaceable. While technology can enhance efficiency, it cannot automatically endow works with depth of judgment, nuance of expression, or weight of thought. What is truly valuable is not mere proficiency with tools but the ability to make appropriate choices amid a myriad of possibilities.

On the other hand, the boundaries of traditional “professional capabilities” are being redrawn by new production conditions. Today’s content production is no longer a closed labor process confined within single disciplinary boundaries. Whether in image dissemination, short drama creation, or brand storytelling and digital content generation, multiple factors such as technological logic, aesthetic mechanisms, platform rules, user psychology, commercial conversion, and public communication are often involved. Last year, the Ministry of Education’s national digital education strategy action deployment meeting, themed “Artificial Intelligence and Educational Reform,” sent a clear signal: single skill training is increasingly inadequate for real-world scenarios. Adaptation is not merely about adding a few AI courses; it requires a deeper restructuring of knowledge systems and capability structures, enabling students to understand technology while also grasping humanistic values; to engage with industry logic while maintaining cultural judgment.

Preserving the Core of Education Amidst Technological Advances

Education is about shaping individuals, transmitting values, and cultivating the spiritual world. The more rapidly technology develops, the more education must hold onto its fundamentals amid change. Especially after AI’s deep involvement in content production, the dimensions that should not be weakened are precisely those of humanity, ethics, and practice—areas that algorithms cannot fully replace.

First, human aesthetic judgment and cultural subjectivity remain the deepest foundation of creative education. AI, based on vast data training, excels at integration, simulation, and generation, but it can also lead to problems such as stylistic homogenization, template-based expression, and weakened cultural context due to statistical averages and high-frequency repetitions. If education only directs students toward “faster output” and “smoother retrieval” while neglecting the cultivation of aesthetic judgment, cultural discernment, and independent expression, then while content production may appear increasingly prosperous, its spiritual quality could become increasingly thin. Regardless of technological iterations, what ultimately determines the quality and character of a work is still the cultural literacy, aesthetic stance, and depth of thought of the individual.

Second, as technology penetrates deeper into content production processes, awareness of rules, responsibility, and public boundaries becomes increasingly important. In November 2025, the Ministry of Education’s Expert Guidance Committee on Teacher Development released the “Guidelines for the Application of Generative AI in Education (First Edition),” proposing clear norms around scenario applications, risk prevention, and behavioral boundaries. This signal is very clear: while technology can certainly expand educational possibilities, efficiency alone does not automatically constitute legitimacy; enhanced generative capabilities do not necessarily imply mature value judgments. If education’s goal is merely to “master the latest tools” without continuous inquiry into “what constitutes reasonable use,” “what public responsibility entails,” and “what boundaries must be upheld,” it risks misplacing “knowing how to use AI” as the entirety of “understanding AI.”

Lastly, embodied practice facing the real world remains an indispensable core of higher education. The more advanced technology becomes, the more education should emphasize the value of being “present.” Because whether in design, film, or communication, the ultimate focus is always on specific individuals, real spaces, complex social relationships, and ever-changing realities. Differences in materials, limitations of scenarios, group negotiations, emotional flows, and subtle changes in social contexts are experiences that models cannot easily replicate. Therefore, preserving practice is also about maintaining the unbroken channel between education and the world of life.

Reaffirming the True Mission of University Education

As artificial intelligence deeply enters content production, it prompts a clearer awareness that the focus of education must shift from “teaching repeatable skills” to “shaping individuals who cannot be easily replaced.” Ultimately, the key question facing universities today is not merely to judge whether a particular major still has prospects, nor is it about mechanically chasing the speed of tool updates, but rather to answer more clearly: in an era where professional boundaries are increasingly fluid and technological logic continues to permeate, what kind of individuals should universities cultivate? Higher education should aim to shape individuals who can understand technological logic while maintaining independent judgment; who can enter new production mechanisms while upholding cultural positions and a sense of responsibility; who possess the ability to respond to reality without losing their subjectivity and sense of values.

The adaptation of university education should focus on the reevaluation of capabilities, restructuring of knowledge, and updating of educational methods; the preservation of university education should manifest as a continuous safeguarding of human subjectivity, humanistic spirit, and practical foundations. Only in this way can higher education truly stand firm and progress in the face of technological transformation.