{Preceptor’s Note: In just a few years, we have watched collegiate attitudes toward artificial intelligence (AI) evolve dramatically. Not long after generative AI became widely available, a pharmacy extern told me, “Oh, we are not allowed to use that. It is considered an honor code violation.”
Fast-forward two years, and students are now being encouraged to explore responsible uses of AI as part of the learning process, with some class projects centered specifically on its appropriate application. This extern’s perspective highlights just how quickly student perceptions of AI are changing.}
The tools we now consider normal were once new, unfamiliar, and probably even controversial. The keyboard was once a change from the typewriter. Online databases changed the way students searched for information. Calculators and pharmacy software changed how healthcare professionals approached calculations and workflow. But none of these tools replaced the skills behind the work. A keyboard did not make someone a strong writer. A search engine did not make someone a careful researcher. A calculator did not make someone understand math. These tools made certain tasks faster, but the thinking still had to come from the person using them.
As a pharmacy student, I do not view AI as something that should replace learning, clinical reasoning, or professional judgment. Instead, I see it as a tool that can help us work more efficiently when used appropriately. Like a calculator, AI can support the process, but it should not replace understanding. Like the internet, it can help us access information quickly, but that information still needs to be evaluated. Like a keyboard, it may help us communicate more efficiently, but the ideas, judgment, and responsibility still belong to the person using it.
AI as a Smarter Search Tool
One of the most practical ways to think about AI is as a more interactive search tool. Traditional search engines are helpful, but they often give users a long list of links to sort through. AI can take a question, organize the information, summarize key points, and explain concepts in a way that is easier to understand. For students, this can be especially helpful when reviewing difficult material, comparing drug classes, creating study questions, or practicing how to explain a medication to a patient.
In that sense, AI can make learning more efficient. It can help a student move from a broad question to a more focused understanding. For example, instead of searching multiple pages for the difference between two medications, a student may ask AI to compare them, explain the major clinical considerations, and then use that explanation as a starting point for further review. This can save time and help students organize large amounts of information.
Where AI Falls Short on Clinical Reasoning
However, that is also where the limitation becomes important. AI may function like a better search engine in some ways, but it should not be treated as a thinking tool that replaces clinical reasoning. Searching, summarizing, and organizing information are not the same as making a safe patient care decision. In pharmacy, the right answer often depends on patient-specific factors such as renal function, hepatic function, allergies, drug interactions, pregnancy status, age, adherence, cost, insurance coverage, health literacy, and patient preferences. AI can provide a general answer, but pharmacists are responsible for deciding whether that answer applies to the patient in front of them. A 2026 study comparing physician- and ChatGPT-generated responses to real-world pharmacotherapy questions found that clinicians still outperformed the chatbot on exactly this kind of patient-specific reasoning.
AI also has accuracy limitations. It can sound confident even when it is wrong. It may provide incomplete information, miss important clinical details, or present outdated information. A polished answer is not always a correct answer. A 2025 study comparing ChatGPT’s responses to real-world drug information questions against a trusted clinical database found meaningful gaps in accuracy, including at least one case where the chatbot confused two entirely different drugs. This is especially important in healthcare, where an incorrect dose, missed contraindication, or incomplete counseling point could affect patient safety. For that reason, AI-generated information should be verified against accredited, trusted sources, especially when it involves patient care.
For pharmacy students, AI can be useful when it supports learning rather than replaces it. Asking AI to explain why an answer is correct, create practice cases, or simplify a difficult topic can strengthen understanding. But using AI to skip the process of thinking through a problem can weaken the exact skills students need to develop. Pharmacy education is not just about finding answers, whether during school or through the continuing education that continues throughout a career. It is about learning how to evaluate information, apply it to a patient, and communicate it clearly.
What AI Can’t Replace at the Counter
This distinction matters because healthcare professionals are not simply information processors. Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians interact with real patients who may be confused, anxious, overwhelmed, or unable to afford their medications. AI can help draft counseling language, but it cannot fully understand the patient’s concerns, recognize hesitation, or adjust communication based on body language and emotion. It can assist with information, but it cannot replace empathy, trust, and professional accountability.
The same idea applies to patient education. AI may help translate complex medication information into simpler language, which could be valuable for improving understanding. However, patients still need healthcare professionals who can verify the accuracy of that information, personalize it to their situation, and answer follow-up questions. A patient may not just need to know how to take a medication; they may need reassurance about side effects, help overcoming adherence barriers, or guidance about when to contact a provider.
Moving Past Fear and Excitement
This is why I believe the conversation around AI should not be based only on fear or excitement. Instead, it should focus on responsible use. When the internet became widely available, healthcare professionals did not stop using textbooks, guidelines, clinical judgment, or professional experience. They learned how to search better, evaluate sources, and apply information appropriately. AI should be approached the same way. ASHP’s own statement on artificial intelligence in pharmacy makes this point directly: AI should serve as a valuable aid to support the pharmacy workforce, not as a replacement for it. The goal is not to avoid AI completely or accept everything it produces. The goal is to use it wisely.
In pharmacy practice, responsible AI use means understanding both its strengths and its limitations. It may help organize information, improve efficiency, and support communication, but it should not be the final authority. It means checking AI-generated responses against reliable sources. It means protecting patient privacy and avoiding the use of sensitive health information in platforms that are not approved for that purpose — a concern pharmacy leaders are actively working through as AI becomes more embedded in care and health-system operations. Most importantly, it means remembering that the healthcare professional remains accountable for the final decision or recommendation.
Artificial intelligence should not be viewed as a shortcut around learning or a substitute for professional judgment. It should be viewed as a tool that can support the work we already do. Just as keyboards did not eliminate writing skills, search engines did not eliminate the need to evaluate information, and calculators did not eliminate the need to understand math, AI should not eliminate the need to think.
As students and future healthcare professionals, we should be open to innovation while remaining grounded in our responsibility to patients. AI may become a powerful part of pharmacy education and practice, but only if we use it with caution, curiosity, and accountability. It can help us search, organize, and communicate more effectively, but it should not lead the clinical decision-making process. The thinking must still come from us.
References
Krichevsky B, Engeli S, Bode-Böger SM, et al. Human vs. artificial intelligence: Physicians outperform ChatGPT in real-world pharmacotherapy counselling. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2026;92(3):891-902. doi:10.1002/bcp.70321
Khatri S, Sengul A, Moon J, Jackevicius CA. Accuracy and reproducibility of ChatGPT responses to real-world drug information questions. J Am Coll Clin Pharm. 2025;8(6):432-438. doi:10.1002/jac5.70038
