Artificial Intelligence Wrote Most of This Article

ByJeff Cain, EdD, MS

As of 7:00 this morning, I only had a cursory knowledge of how artificial intelligence (AI) might play a role in the scholarly aspects of pharmacy education. It is now 7:31 a.m. and I have written an entire article about it. To be completely honest, I only wrote this paragraph and the last two. I used Jasper, an AI writing assistant to generate the rest of it. That’s the point. Sometimes the best way to discuss a subject is to illustrate it. Read below to see how Jasper answered my question about benefits and issues of using AI for pharmacy education scholarship. 

Jasper <Begin>

AI-assisted writing tools can provide immense benefits to faculty researching and teaching in pharmacy education. For example, AI-powered algorithms can help analyze research papers faster and more accurately, allowing faculty to identify potential issues or areas of improvement before publishing. AI could also be used to quickly generate summaries of multiple sources which could be useful when synthesizing large amounts of information. Additionally, natural language processing (NLP) tools can detect patterns in text and documents, allowing for deeper understanding of topics that may have otherwise been missed. Moreover, AI-supported writing tools could allow faculty to modify the structure of their content in more complex ways than possible with traditional methods, giving them freedom to craft compelling arguments and refine their language for maximum effectiveness. This type of technology has the potential to improve research accuracy and speed up the process of publishing scholarly work. 

Automated tools can do a lot of the work for faculty members, but this could lead them to overlook important aspects or pieces of information that they would otherwise have picked up if they had done their own research. Furthermore, AI-assisted writing tools are not infallible and are not necessarily able to identify errors with the same finesse as someone who has a comprehensive understanding of their subject matter. Finally, AI-assisted writing tools don’t necessarily provide full context when researching topics or understanding different perspectives which can lead to oversimplified interpretations which might miss nuances or implications within certain areas of research. In other words, it’s important for teachers and scholars to maintain an awareness about how these tools might limit critical thinking skills by providing only shallow answers rather than challenging current beliefs and expanding knowledge more holistically.

The ethical and practical issues associated with AI-assisted writing tools have been widely discussed in the literature. There is a need for a better understanding of the potential risks and benefits of such tools and authors should consider questions such as how AI can be used responsibly in terms of intellectual property rights, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. These tools could introduce both positive and negative impacts on concepts like originality, creativity, and authorship. Although AI tools can help writers produce a larger quantity of work more quickly, they may also lead to a loss of quality due to mistakes or inaccuracies. This could potentially lessen the value of written work created using AI-assisted writing tools. 

Incorporating artificial intelligence into faculty research and scholarship is far from a novel concept yet its potential remains largely untapped due its complexity and rapidly changing nature.  While there are certainly many benefits associated with these technologies, it is essential that faculty take an active role when integrating these tools into their teaching and research practices. By ensuring that educators are well-informed about how these technologies work and what implications they may have for student learning, universities and instructors alike can reap the rewards without running into avoidable issues along the way.

Jasper <End>

The fact that an AI tool could generate a well-stated argument on a complex topic in a matter of seconds simultaneously piqued my interest and raised questions. It is relatively easy to see the potential of AI to help us do our jobs better, but also be slightly concerned about the issues to which Jasper alluded. 

Ethical issues pertaining to scientific authorship have been well-documented in the literature,1,2 but AI may be ushering in a new set of considerations for what it means to produce knowledge. For example, did I deftly exploit a technology tool here to help me be more productive or was it a form of “dishonest scholarship” that claimed Jasper’s work as my own? AI is a fundamentally different technology tool than grammar checking or citation managers and may revolutionize how we approach the scholarly aspects of our jobs. As Carvalho and colleagues suggest, AI may force us to re-conceptualize our teaching, learning, and research paradigms for a technology-enabled future that preserves the best aspects of inquiry, integrity, and knowledge attainment. The time is right for pharmacy faculty to develop this scholarship as we prepare for the next generation of pharmacy education and scholarly work.


Hosseini M, Gordijn B. A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship. Account Res. 2020; 27(5):284-324.

Marco CA. Who wrote this paper? Basics of authorship and ethical issues. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(1):76.

Carvalho L, Martinez-Maldonado R, Tsai YS, Markauskaite L, De Laat M. How can we design for learning in an AI world? Comp Educ: Artif Intell. 2022; 3:100053.

Author Bio(s):

Jeff Cain, EdD, MS is an associate professor and vice-chair in the Department of Pharmacy Practice & Science at the University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy. Jeff’s educational scholarship interests include innovative teaching, digital media, and contemporary issues in higher education. In his free time, he is dad to a pole-vaulting daughter, an obstacle racer, an extreme trail ultramarathoner, and is president of For Those Who Would, a 501(c)(3) charity in the adventure and endurance racing communities. 

Pulses is a scholarly blog supported by Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning


      1. Jeff,
        As you read, experience, and delve further into understanding AI,
        1. what implications do you foresee for pharmacy education?
        (For instance, from your experience(s) with AI, do you see it as an “end” to take-home essays for learning assessment?)
        2. Are there things we can do as educators to better discriminate when we are getting our students’ authentic response versus AI?
        (For example, I noted that your AI did not have references though you did…might that discriminate?)

        Thank you
        Michael Peeters


      2. It’s going to be interesting to see what evolves in pharmacy education. I have a paper that hopefully will be accepted soon that delves into some of it. But big picture is that it has implications for assessment for those who use written and/or take home exams. But rather than be concerned about cheating, I think we need to optimize its use in our jobs for things such as developing cases, test questions, journal club reviews, etc… We also need to teach students how they can use it to study such as through retrieval-based learning practices, preparation for journal clubs, and discernment of information. The power of AI lies partially in knowing what questions to ask and how to ask them, but AI responses are error-prone and we need to continue to teach students how to discern good info from bad. Finally, as AI becomes more embedded in practice, we need to prepare them for that future. Long answer, but probably not long enough!!


  1. I was thinking earlier this week about writing an article on AI-assisted writing and how this could change pharmacy education. But, with the twist of having openAI write the article. lol It is pretty cool what AI can do, but it makes me wonder how students could use the technology to “fool educators” into believing they know the material. I’m talking about writing SOAP notes vs taking exams. Could we as educators tell if AI wrote a student’s SOAP note?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Jeff, thanks for this, it raises so many questions! I’m curious, did Jasper provide any references to support the statements made? Tom

    Liked by 1 person

    1. That’s another interesting thing. In the initial response it provided “ghost” citations. They were from real authors in real vol/issues of real journals — but the article didn’t exist!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s