The AI Dilemma in Grant Applications

Writing grant applications can be a time consuming and stressful process. Applicants may find it challenging to gather sufficient research to meet the requirements within a condensed timeframe. As a result, many writers turn to AI for quick access to essential information, which raises important questions about the potential implications of this approach. 

AI is the wave of the future, with nearly 60% of businesses planning to increase AI investments in 2025. Many people appreciate AI for its ability to save time and effort; however, it also comes with significant consequences. Furthermore, much remains unknown regarding the power of AI. Therefore, it is essential to understand the benefits and drawbacks of using AI to ensure the protection of applications.   

 

Pros 

The increasing interest in using AI to assist with grant applications is understandable. Often, the applications are dense, require substantial research, and have quickly approaching deadlines. Fortunately, integrating AI into this process can offer significant time-saving benefits. 

Saves Time. AI can quickly search the internet for relevant information and sources, saving hours of pre-draft research time. 

Explains complex content in a digestible way. Writers often struggle to draft complex content outside their expertise; however, AI can help them better understand the material. 

Aids in brainstorming. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT help brainstorm strategies for persuasive writing. This capability enhances efficiency and minimizes the time spent on the process. 

Helps with clarity. AI applications like Grammarly provide critical feedback for quick writing improvements without having to wait for an editor. 

Boosts productivity. By increasing efficiency, AI enhances the productivity of the grant writing process.  

 

Cons 

Despite the advantageous and time-saving benefits AI provides, it also comes with a number of drawbacks that could undermine its overall effectiveness. 

AI lacks context and originality. AI-generated content may often be overly generalized and may not fully align with the specific requirements detailed in grant narratives. 

Risks plagiarism. Some tools may extract data from various sources without proper citations, resulting in greater legal liability.  

Content is less engaging. AI frequently encounters challenges in discerning the user's intent and the nuances of human behavior. Consequently, the content it generates is far less engaging than that created by real people.  

Inadvertently disclosing proprietary material. Closed AI models offer a proprietary advantage by keeping their code and data private, which protects intellectual property and sensitive information. In contrast, open-source AI models can pose security risks due to their accessible data. While open AI models enable developers to contribute to advancements, they may also store user input, potentially disclosing sensitive information in future interactions. 

Quantity over quality. AI can quickly generate a large volume of content, but this does not guarantee high-quality proposals; these automated drafts lack depth and the personalized elements that improve a proposal's quality.  

Frequently notorious for getting information wrong. AI-generated content can be inaccurate, causing delays in the application process as writers must verify the reliability and accuracy of all material produced by these tools. 

Skill atrophy. In some grant applications, the use of AI is prohibited; if a writer becomes overly reliant on it, they may be less prepared for applications that do not permit its use.  

 

In conclusion, over-relying on AI to create content poses a genuine risk. While it can aid in certain applications, depending on it for writing diminishes the quality, creativity, and uniqueness of that application. Additionally, there are significant legal risks associated with plagiarism and the use of proprietary material. While AI can play a crucial role in enhancing the quality of writing, final proposals should demonstrate a thorough understanding of and genuine enthusiasm for the project. 

Kelly Richardson, a young entrepreneur in the tech space, states, "AI language tools are neither intelligent nor dumb. They're just tools. If you train these tools intensely, they can produce the intended content faster. But they can't produce the creativity that needs to go into the content. You always need a human to inject the necessary brilliance into AI-generated content pieces. So, the motto is 'AI-assisted, not AI-generate.'"