Interview: AI in Psychology Studies - Speed, Doubts, and Editing Texts

Artificial intelligence is no longer just a topic for tech geeks. It's increasingly making its way into the humanities and social sciences – including psychology. We spoke with a 24-year-old psychology student currently in his fourth master's semester at the University of Hamburg. In this interview, he shares insights on how he uses AI tools like ChatGPT, DeepL, or DeepSeek in his daily study routine—and why he is somewhat skeptical about the development.

Editor: Do you use AI tools in your studies?

Student: Yes, nowadays I use AI for almost every major essay I write. Usually, I rely on ChatGPT, especially when I need to create an initial draft or fine-tune existing text passages. Additionally, I use DeepL to make my writing clearer and more reader-friendly—especially when things need to sound a bit more formal.

For research purposes, I find DeepSeek extremely helpful as it gives me quicker and clearer access to studies and academic papers than conventional search engines. It saves me a lot of time and hassle by eliminating the need to manually sift through PDFs. Sometimes, it feels a bit like having a digital research assistant—one who doesn't chat unnecessarily and always stays focused.

Editor: Which tasks do you primarily handle using AI tools?

Student: Definitely research and text processing. Occasionally, I'll even let the AI generate individual sentences or whole sections, which I later edit. I frequently use AI to summarize research papers, particularly if the language or format is too technical. Grammar checking and stylistic editing through AI have also become standard procedure for me—it's simply faster and more thorough.

Editor: Has AI changed the way you study?

Student: Yes, definitely. Writing assignments now take me significantly less time—I get things done quicker, which is great, especially when things get busy. But I notice my own writing skills have suffered somewhat. Previously, I spent a lot more time crafting sentences myself, considering wording carefully, experimenting. In doing so, I learned a lot—not just about the content, but about language, argumentation, and style.

Nowadays, a lot goes through AI, which can be efficient but also makes me feel less connected to my writing. I reach the finish line faster, but sometimes it doesn't feel like the text is truly mine. It often feels more like assembling a project rather than building something of my own piece by piece. I think there’s a chance you lose out on a deeper engagement with the material this way.

Editor: Are you aware of other AI tools as well?

Student: I'm familiar with NotebookLM and Perplexity AI by name, although I've yet to test them out myself. I often see them mentioned in discussion groups or on social media. It’s intriguing how frequently new tools pop up—almost weekly. You constantly feel like you're missing something new and exciting. However, this also makes it harder to keep track of everything. Usually, you discover what's genuinely useful only by trying it out—but again, who has the time? I suspect students today need an actual strategy just to keep an overview.

Editor: Overall, how do you assess the use of AI in your studies?

Student: Honestly, rather negatively. It becomes harder for me to evaluate my own or my peers' performance accurately when so much work is taken care of by AI tools. It's almost impossible to determine who authored how much of an assignment, which makes fair grading difficult.

Editor: Should AI become more integrated into psychology studies?

Student: Yes, I generally think that makes sense. Many psychology articles or studies are unnecessarily complicated in their language. If AI can help make these texts more understandable, that's a huge win. But it's important that the learning process itself is not lost—psychology thrives on understanding, not just summarizing.

Editor: What risks do you see?

Student: Fairness primarily concerns me—how do you compare student performances when everyone uses different levels of AI assistance? And if you rely too heavily on AI, the depth of your learning process diminishes. You might adopt information without truly comprehending it.

Editor: Nevertheless, how could AI benefit you?

Student: Mainly as a useful tool for tedious yet necessary tasks—like refining sentences, structuring texts, proofreading. AI doesn't think for me, but it does create additional space to focus. Instead of wasting too much energy on sentence construction, I can better concentrate on content—on what I'm actually trying to express.

What I also appreciate: it's patient, provides no judgment, and lets me work at my own pace. Honestly, when you have a bad day or you're under huge study pressure, it's comforting to know there's this tool that at least takes care of the mechanical tasks for you. Sometimes I joke that AI is like a study buddy who doesn't ask questions—just does exactly what you need.

Editor: And ethically – what’s your perspective?

Student: I don't find it morally wrong to use AI—as long as you take responsibility. When dealing with sensitive topics, human judgment should always double-check the AI-produced content. AI can sound highly convincing, but that doesn't guarantee correctness. It’s crucial to maintain a sense of quality control and source verification.

Editor: What about regulations?

Student: Honestly, it'd be very challenging to strictly regulate AI usage because it's used so diversely and individually. Plus, let's be realistic—many students would likely find ways around rigid rules. A much better approach would be promoting a culture of transparency. If students openly shared how and to what extent they used AI tools, this transparency alone could go a long way toward fairness.

Maybe lecturers and students together could create criteria outlining when and how AI use is appropriate for specific assignments. Such an approach wouldn't merely set rules, it would also raise awareness. After all, the goal isn't to ban AI entirely, but rather to incorporate it thoughtfully and responsibly.

Editor: And what would your ideal AI look like?

Student: Most importantly: no inventing facts! To me, that's one of the biggest weaknesses right now—systems often sound totally confident even though they might be talking nonsense. An ideal AI should recognize scientific standards and rigorously stick to them. References must be traceable, claims verifiable. Especially when studying, this clarity is essential. It's not about creativity or imagination—it's about solid, reliable knowledge.

Ideally, an AI would not just write correctly, but also clearly and understandably, allowing users to select different levels of depth—whether they're looking for an introductory overview or delving deep into a subject.

It should also come with practical features—for example, automatically prepared slide decks, structured flashcards, or visual summaries. Maybe that's wishful thinking, but to me, if we're already using AI, why not request the full service package?

Conclusion and Outlook

Of course AI is useful—but it also changes the way we learn, think, and judge performance. Our student interview partner uses it purposefully but remains critical. In his opinion, one thing is clear: AI can support students, but never replace genuine understanding. After all, the essence of psychology is comprehension—not automation.