The notion that "the humanities are useless" is not new, but it has gained renewed poignancy in today's artificial intelligence-driven world. As a journalist observing trends in education, I've noticed a growing tension: technical skills are celebrated for their direct economic value, disciplines like literature, philosophy and foreign languages are often dismissed as impractical.

Universities are cutting humanities courses, enrollments are falling and students worry about their prospects — a phenomenon that reflects a broader societal bias toward what can be easily measured and monetized.

In this climate, the essential qualities nurtured by the humanities — critical thinking, self-reflection, cultural empathy, aesthetic taste — are pushed to the margins. They are seen as soft, intangible, even redundant. And with the rise of large language models capable of writing essays, composing poetry and simulating dialogue, a pressing question emerges: Will AI replace the study of the humanities altogether?

My answer, after reflecting on recent conversations with leading scholars, is a firm no.

In a recent lecture, Dai Jinhua, a professor of Chinese at Peking University, reminded us that the humanities have always been tasked with answering fundamental questions, such as "How should society value human beings?" and "What makes us irreplaceable?"

She noted that AI still cannot adequately cover the unique domain of "critical thinking" that belongs to the humanities. She stressed that, in the face of claims like "the humanities are useless" or "the humanities are dead", the issue lies not with the humanities themselves, but with whether humanists possess the courage and capability to shoulder the responsibilities of the era and confront its challenges.

Equally compelling was my interview with Shing-Tung Yau, dean of Tsinghua University's Qiuzhen College. A renowned mathematician, he spoke passionately about the interdependence of knowledge. "Great science grows in fertile cultural soil," he said, citing Newton, Einstein and the Renaissance as evidence.

Even at institutes like MIT and Caltech, which began with a focus on engineering, strong humanities programs eventually emerged — because innovation thrives where thought is nourished by philosophy, literature and art, Yau said.

When asked about AI, Yau acknowledged its ability to mimic style and form, but he drew a clear line: "It cannot cultivate personal emotion."

From my perspective, as a liberal arts major myself, I think the humanities teach us to sit with ambiguity, to listen to stories different from our own, and to recognize that not every important question has a single right answer.

In an era of algorithms and automation, what we risk losing is not just creativity but conscience. AI can process data, but it cannot assume responsibility. The humanities instill the habit of asking not only "Can we do this?" but "Should we?" — a question that grows more urgent as technology permeates every layer of life.

I believe the real usefulness of the humanities lies in their ability to connect — not just past to present, but person to person. In a fragmented digital world, the study of culture, history and philosophy helps rebuild shared understanding.

So, no, the humanities are not useless. If anything, they are becoming more vital. The real challenge lies not in proving their worth, but in ensuring they remain a living, questioning and courageous force in education and society — especially now, when we need them most.