Will AI make learning more personalised or passive for students? Jensen Huang and Ramine Tinati offer opposing views

As artificial intelligence continues to redefine how work and knowledge are distributed, education stands at a pivotal crossroad. Will AI help students learn in a more customised, efficient manner, or will it encourage disengagement by doing too much of the intellectual heavy lifting? The answer, according to two of today’s tech voices, depends on how we design learning systems and how we rethink the purpose of education itself.During the Fortune Brainstorm AI conference in Singapore, where Ramine Tinati, lead at Accenture’s APAC Center for Advanced AI, expressed caution about AI’s impact on productivity and learning. Earlier this year, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang offered a contrasting take on the relationship between AI and cognitive growth during his appearance on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS.Together, their perspectives highlight a growing divide in how experts view AI’s role in student learning: as either an enabler of deeper thinking or a tool that risks fostering passivity.

Personalised tools or automated shortcuts?

Speaking in Singapore, Tinati questioned the assumption that faster task completion equals improved productivity or learning. “If you give employees a tool to do things faster, they do it faster. But are they more productive? Probably not, because they do it faster and then go for coffee breaks,” he said, referring to the corporate world. The parallel in education is clear: AI tools may help students complete assignments quickly, but does that equate to deeper understanding?Tinati warned that meaningful progress requires more than bolting AI onto existing structures.

For schools and universities, this raises critical questions about whether classroom workflows, assessment methods, and pedagogy are being redesigned to take full advantage of AI or if technology is merely being layered on top of outdated systems.His comments suggest that without a holistic reinvention of how education is delivered, students may become increasingly passive learners, reliant on AI-generated summaries, solutions, and answers instead of developing analytical and creative skills.

Intelligence amplifier or crutch?

Jensen Huang, on the other hand, sees AI not as a shortcut but as an amplifier. Rejecting concerns raised by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study that suggested frequent AI use may impair cognitive function, the Nvidia CEO offered a personal counterpoint.Huang said he uses AI “literally every single day,” on Fareed Zakaria GPS in July 2025 and says his “cognitive skills are actually advancing.”His stance reflects the idea that AI, when used intentionally, can deepen intellectual engagement by freeing up mental bandwidth.

Instead of spending time on rote memorisation or repetitive tasks, students could spend more time asking deeper questions, synthesising ideas, or applying knowledge in creative contexts.

A shift in educational philosophy

As schools and universities integrate generative AI tools into classrooms, the tension between automation and agency becomes more urgent. Adaptive learning platforms, AI tutoring bots, and automated grading systems offer the promise of scale and personalisation, but they also risk removing the friction that is often essential to deep learning.Educators remain divided. Some see AI as a valuable co-pilot, helping differentiate instruction and offer real-time feedback. Others worry that over-reliance on AI will erode students’ critical thinking and reduce opportunities for productive struggle, an essential part of learning.What both camps agree on, however, is that AI’s impact on education will be shaped less by the technology itself and more by the values, structures, and pedagogy surrounding its use.

Tinati’s call to “reinvent the work” resonates with education leaders who argue that merely digitising textbooks or automating homework checks is not enough.True transformation requires rethinking how knowledge is acquired, applied, and assessed. For some, this means designing learning environments where AI acts as a guide, not a substitute. For others, it means slowing down the rush to automate in favour of deeper dialogue around learning outcomes.

What’s ahead

As AI becomes more embedded in classrooms and curricula, its effects will likely remain contested. The divide between those who view it as a tool for liberation and those who see it as a threat to student autonomy reflects a broader uncertainty about the future of learning.For now, the debate between voices like Jensen Huang and Ramine Tinati underscores a vital question for educators and policymakers alike: Are we shaping AI to serve the goals of education or allowing it to reshape education without reflection?TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here.