FOR the first time, Philippine companies are hiring a generation of college graduates who may have spent much of their university years studying, writing and completing assignments with artificial intelligence (AI). These young professionals have used ChatGPT to prepare essays, summarize textbooks, solve problems and even complete research papers. Many have no experience of college without the help of AI.
ChatGPT was launched in November 2022. Students who entered college around that time are now graduating and entering the workforce. Their habits were shaped by a technology that could produce in seconds what previous generations spent hours researching and writing.
What kind of employees will they become? More importantly, are Philippine companies prepared for them?
A report by the Asean Foundation in February 2026 said 83 percent of Filipino students have used generative AI for academic purposes. Three quarters of them reportedly use AI for paraphrasing and writing. Meanwhile, only 73 percent of Filipino teachers have used generative AI in learning. The technology is being adopted by students faster than the institutions educating them.
These figures have a story to tell. AI is no longer a complementary learning tool. For many students, it has become part of how they think, study and produce work.
This generation will bring considerable advantages to employers. They can produce reports quickly, summarize lengthy documents, create presentations and analyze information with minimal oversight. A new graduate in AI is able to perform the work of multiple junior staff.
This is good news for businesses burdened by rising costs and pressure to increase productivity. Small and medium enterprises, in particular, could benefit from young employees who can use AI to perform marketing, research, customer service and administrative work.
But there is another side to this development.
What happens when students graduate without developing the ability to perform the work that AI has been doing for them?
A study published in 2025 in Social Sciences & Humanities Open studied 120 university students. Those who learned with unlimited help from ChatGPT scored 57.5 percent on a knowledge retention test administered 45 days later compared to 68.5 percent among students who learned by traditional methods. This is not to say that all AI-assisted learning is bad, but it does raise some serious concerns about over-dependence.
Another study involving nearly 1,000 high school mathematics students found that unrestricted AI assistance improved performance during practice, but students subsequently performed worse when AI access was removed. Students using an AI tutor designed to support learning rather than simply provide answers largely avoided this problem.
The distinction matters. Producing an answer is not the same as understanding it.
Imagine hiring a business analyst that can churn out an impressive market assessment using ChatGPT but can’t explain the assumptions behind the numbers. Or an accounting graduate able to generate financial reports but incapable of spotting an incorrect calculation. What about an engineering graduate using AI solutions without knowing the fundamentals behind them?
This is not to say that young graduates should not be employed. They are warnings about how companies should evaluate competence.
Traditional recruiting methods become less reliable. AI is able to now take home examinations, written essays and prepared case studies. Employers may need to concentrate on live problem-solving, oral presentations, practical demonstrations and discussions of how candidates arrive at decisions.
Companies should also reconsider how they train people. Instead of banning AI, employers should be teaching graduates when to deploy it, how to scrutinize its outputs and when to rely on their own judgment.
There is also a workplace implication worth noting. Young workers, who have become accustomed to getting answers instantly, may find processes that involve discussion, experimentation and repeated failures frustrating. But these experiences are simply the way professional judgment is sharpened.
Managers should avoid the temptation to judge young workers solely by their speed in finishing tasks. Speed without understanding can be expensive, especially in banking, health care, engineering and other industries where mistakes have serious consequences.
The implications extend beyond business.
A society that increasingly outsources writing, explanation and decision-making to AI may find itself losing the ability to judge for itself. Misinformation can spread more easily when people don’t check facts and accept convincing answers. The problem is that when original thinking is replaced by automated responses, public discussion risks becoming repetitive and shallow.
The Philippines has a problem with inequality, too. Paid subscriptions to AI products, good connectivity and good guidance could make students more powerful than those who use free tools and have limited connectivity. If schools don’t bridge the gap, artificial intelligence may widen the educational divide.
The Department of Education released guidelines on AI in basic education in February, a welcome acknowledgment that technology needs to be managed, not banned. But universities and employers must carry that responsibility into higher education and the workplace.
I believe the next generation of Filipino professionals could become exceptionally productive. They have access to capabilities that previous generations could only imagine. But productivity should not be confused with intelligence, and polished output should never be mistaken for competence.
The real test of this generation will not be how well graduates use ChatGPT. It will be what they can accomplish when ChatGPT gives them the wrong answer, or when they must think for themselves.
And that is something no university diploma or AI-generated résumé can guarantee.
The author is the founder and CEO of Hungry Workhorse, a digital, culture and customer experience transformation consulting firm.