14/05/2026
๐๐๐๐ง๐ข๐ฅ๐๐๐ | ๐๐๐ข๐ฆ๐ง ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐๐ฆ: ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ผ๐น๐น๐ผ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐-๐๐ฒ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ฃ๐น๐ฎ๐๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ๐บ๐
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has quickly moved from a classroom tool to a central part of student campaign trials. Candidates for school organizations use different AI platforms to organize schedules, design eye-catching posters, and even help structure their policy visions. While these tools offer a new level of efficiency, their growing presence is changing how leadership is presented on campus, moving us toward an era in which the line between technology and personal advocacy is becoming deeply blurry.
AI is a valuable tool for students when dealing with complex data and grammar issues. However, true leadership is not something you can prompt in a generative AI; it requires heart, honesty, and lived experience, and AI allows a leader to skip that growth. By letting a machine pick the correct stance, we risk electing leaders who are simply reading a script they did not write, standing on a foundation with no real heart.
Relying on AI-generated platforms often leads to a generic trap, as they mostly offer a one-size-fits-all solution. Since it is trained on global data, it tends to suggest standard ideas, like transparency and awareness campaigns, that could be applied to any school.
In reality, every campus has its own unique, overlooked problems that a database simply cannot see. Whether it is a specific broken path behind a certain building, a recurring scheduling mess in one particular department, or the quiet struggles of a specific student group, these are local details an algorithm will never catch. Without a personal touch, a leader misses the real issues that a computer can't find, but a student feels every day.
Allowing the use of AI to create one's personal paltform is creating a leader who is disconnected from the very promises they are making. Because they didn't do the mental labor of building the platform, they are essentially admitting they haven't taken the time to think, observe, or listen to their fellow students. Leadership is not just about having a list of tasks; it is about the conviction behind those tasks. If a candidate cannot be bothered to write their own vision, it raises a serious question: will they be bothered to put in the work once they are in office?
Utilizing AI is not a bad thing. It can be a great helper for a student leader. When used to organize your thoughts, fix grammar, or turn a messy list of ideas into a professional plan, AI is a powerful tool. It can help students with great visions who struggle to explain them clearly. The key is to use it to improve your own voice, not to replace it. AI should be used to sharpen your ideas and help you stay organized, but the actual vision and the love for the school must come from you. It is okay to let AI help you in ways it can, but you should never let the machine do the thinking for you.
We must give high importance to the Miting de Avance, as these face-to-face encounters are the only way to see past a polished, AI-written platform. These live moments reveal whether a leaderโs heart is actually in the mission or if they are simply following a borrowed vision. By prioritizing these personal interactions, we ensure that we aren't just voting for the best "prompter," but for a leader who possesses the authentic conviction and courage to serve the student body when the screen is turned off.
Leadership is about human courage, not data processing. We must choose leaders who stand on their own two feet, speak with their own voices, and carry a vision born from real experiences. If we continue to elect the best "prompters" instead of the best thinkers, we risk filling our student government with nothing more than ghost promisesโplatforms that look impressive on paper but lack the heart and conviction to ever become a reality.
๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐๐ผ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐น ๐๐ผ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐ฎ๐ป
๐๐ฎ๐๐ผ๐๐ ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐บ๐ฒ๐น๐ฎ ๐ก๐ถ๐ฐ๐ผ๐น๐ฒ ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ป๐๐ผ
-26
