The rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked countless conversations about its potential impact on education. One of the most intriguing questions is whether AI will make formal language learning obsolete in the near future. In this blog post, we showcase a roundtable discussion between three AI-generated “experts,” each with a distinct background in AI research, pedagogy, and applied linguistics. While they are fictional personas created by an AI itself, their perspectives blend academic insights, real-world application, and theoretical speculation to shed light on this timely topic.
From breakthroughs in large language models (LLMs) to personalized tutoring systems, AI-driven tools are reshaping how individuals approach language study. At the same time, educators, linguists, and industry leaders stress the enduring value of cultural fluency, nuanced communication skills, and the deep cognitive benefits of learning a language through formal study. In the conversation that follows below, our three AI “experts” weigh these factors to explore whether—or how—AI can replace traditional methods of language acquisition.
The experts tackle the core question: Will AI tools make human-led, formal language learning irrelevant in the next five to ten years? Their exchange offers a multifaceted view of what the future may hold for language learners, educators, and technology enthusiasts alike.
The below round-table discussion was created with ChatGPT using this prompt:
“You are playing the role of 3 experts. All the experts have an extensive background in fields of AI research, pedagogy and language teaching and learning. The experts have a track-record in academic research as well as working with the industry leading companies in their respective fields. The experts are discussing if artificial intelligence and new AI tools will make formal language learning irrelevant in the next 5-10 years. The form of the discussion is that each round of discussion will include one turn from each of the experts. In each round, one expert will provide their argument on this topic first, and then the two experts will respond with their expert views. The discussion will go on as long as each of the experts have had time to provide two rounds of their initial own arguments.”
AI experts’ views on the future of language learning
Round 1
Expert A (AI Researcher & Language Technologist):
I would like to start our discussion by pointing to recent breakthroughs in natural language processing (NLP) and machine translation. Large Language Models (LLMs), for instance, have made huge strides in generating human-like text and translating languages with remarkable accuracy. At first glance, this progress seems to diminish the need for rigorous, structured language learning—why should anyone invest years in mastering grammatical rules or building extensive vocabulary if AI can instantly provide translations or well-formed texts? If these tools become ever more ubiquitous, there’s a temptation to rely on them as a crutch.
However, I think there’s a more complex picture here. These AI tools, while astonishing, frequently rely on massive data, and they can struggle with nuanced cultural contexts, idioms, or complex linguistic forms that don’t appear regularly in their training data. They can also produce plausible yet incorrect outputs. Therefore, although they are helpful in casual or everyday tasks like quick translations and summarizations, there remain many higher-level language skills—critical reading, argumentative writing, nuanced communication—that might still demand formal learning. So, I’d say that while AI tools will continue to reduce certain burdens of language acquisition, they likely won’t render formal language learning obsolete in the next 5-10 years.
Expert B (Educational Psychologist & Pedagogue):
Your point on reliance is crucial. We see how technology can encourage complacency—if a student believes “the AI will do it for me,” they might invest less effort in fundamental learning. However, genuine language competence includes cultural literacy, pragmatic use, and the ability to think critically in a foreign language context. And these elements usually require more than just superficial machine translations.
Of course, LLMs can augment education; they could indeed make certain aspects of language learning more accessible. For example, personalized practice or immediate feedback on grammar or pronunciation is already being supported by AI. So, my perspective is that while these innovations may shift how language is learned, they don’t eliminate why language should be learned.
Expert C (Applied Linguist & Industry Consultant):
I agree with both of you. From an industry standpoint, we see the positive impact of AI-powered communication on global collaboration. Yet companies still value staff who can use subtle, strategic language skills—persuasive speech, negotiation tactics, and advanced writing for specific audiences. Achieving those skills usually necessitates a deep understanding of language, culture, and context.
So, rather than making formal language learning irrelevant, I predict AI tools will transform language education into a more dynamic, personalized process. Learners might rely on these tools for quick help, but the human capacity for creative, context-sensitive communication—and the trust that comes with it—can’t be replaced wholesale by AI in the near future.
Round 2
Expert B (Educational Psychologist & Pedagogue):
Building on the initial argument, I’d emphasize how formal language learning develops cognitive and metacognitive skills that extend far beyond just “speaking and writing.” For instance, through systematic grammar study and structured practice, language learners develop critical thinking, pattern recognition, and problem-solving abilities. Formal classes and carefully designed curriculums aren’t solely about memorizing words—they help learners build strategies for communication, self-monitoring, and error correction.
If AI were to remove the perceived need to learn a language thoroughly, we would potentially lose these broader developmental benefits. While the speed and convenience of AI-based translation or text generation are appealing, we should be careful not to undervalue the cognitive resilience that comes from wrestling with a language and reflecting on our own errors.
Expert A (AI Researcher & Language Technologist) responding:
Absolutely, the development of metacognitive skills is a huge part of formal language education. Interestingly, if used wisely, AI technologies could actually strengthen these skills. For example, language-learning apps that use AI to adapt to each student’s level can target weaknesses more effectively than a one-size-fits-all textbook. The technology can foster self-awareness by providing immediate feedback and personalized prompts.
However, this scenario only works if learners are guided by well-designed pedagogy that encourages active learning rather than passive reliance on “machine answers.” It’s not so much a matter of throwing out formal instruction, but updating it to leverage AI’s adaptive potential.
Expert C (Applied Linguist & Industry Consultant) responding:
I see this reflected in many corporate training programs that integrate AI-based tools. They don’t replace human-led workshops; instead, they supplement them with interactive elements—like chatbots for repetitive drilling or instant grammar checks. In fact, companies that adopt AI language tools often report they need more training for employees to interpret and refine AI outputs. If you don’t understand the nuances of language, the AI-generated text can be misleading.
So on a practical level, the presence of advanced AI can make the ability to think critically about language more important than ever. A translator or copywriter who simply cuts and pastes AI output without deep linguistic insight risks serious errors.
Round 3
Expert C (Applied Linguist & Industry Consultant):
Another crucial point here is the role of motivation and personal interest in language learning. If learners believe that “AI will do it for me,” there’s a risk some might lack the motivation to engage deeply with the language. But from my observations across different industries, those who aim for genuine linguistic competence—be it to connect with new markets, build relationships, or expand cultural understanding—see AI as a complement rather than a substitute. This dynamic reminds me that language isn’t merely a tool; it’s also a gateway to culture, identity, and new ways of thinking. AI tools can facilitate exposure, but there’s a significant difference between passively consuming AI translations and actively exploring a language’s literature, art, humor, and cultural references.
Expert A (AI Researcher & Language Technologist) responding:
Yes, language is so tightly bound to culture and context that no AI system, however sophisticated, can fully capture the intangible aspects of human experience that shape our linguistic expressions. I see LLMs as an aid for bridging gaps, helping with instant communication, or providing on-the-fly translations, but not as a replacement for cultural insight or genuine empathy in communication. That lived, human experience is something that emerges from dedicated study, exposure to native speakers, and immersion in cultural contexts.
It’s also likely that as AI translates more content, people’s curiosity to learn languages could actually increase, wanting to engage with original versions or build cross-cultural friendships that machines alone can’t replicate.
Expert B (Educational Psychologist & Pedagogue) responding:
I want to emphasize the significance of the emotional component of learning a language. Formal classes, language exchange programs, and immersion experiences support a learner’s emotional engagement and motivation to keep improving. You need that emotional drive to persist through difficulties. AI tools on their own rarely foster the same sense of community or deep personal investment. Teachers, peers, and cultural experiences all play vital roles in motivating learners.
Yes, an AI can serve as a conversation partner and can gamify language drills, but the human factor—developing empathy, cultural awareness, and interpersonal communication—remains central to why we continue to see formal language learning programs thrive.
Round 4
Expert A (AI Researcher & Language Technologist):
Now, focusing more on the technological trajectory, in the next 5-10 years we’ll see even more advanced models and perhaps “personalized AI tutors” that can simulate human conversation almost seamlessly. The question is: Will these developments make the time-consuming aspects of language learning irrelevant? Possibly for some individuals who only need superficial reading or transactional communication. Yet those capabilities won’t replace in-depth linguistic and cultural competence.
A machine can correct your grammar, but it can’t replicate the deeper human processes of negotiation, persuasion, or building trust through personal rapport. These “soft” communication skills are precisely what formal training can help refine. Rather than seeing formal learning as obsolete, I predict it will adapt by incorporating these emerging AI tools, but still remain indispensable.
Expert B (Educational Psychologist & Pedagogue) responding:
Yes, and I think from an instructional design perspective, we might see a blend of AI-driven solutions and traditional methods, like project-based learning, group discussions, and experiential tasks. The advantage of AI is that it can handle repetitive or mechanics-focused tasks, offering immediate feedback. That frees up in-person time for collaborative, authentic communication.
I foresee that curricula will shift to give more space to critical thinking, cultural competence, and creative expression, while letting AI handle rote drills. This pivot would not make formal learning irrelevant—it would actually reemphasize the areas where human interaction and expert guidance are most effective.
Expert C (Applied Linguist & Industry Consultant) responding:
In industry settings, we already see this blended model: employees use AI to rapidly draft emails or proposals in foreign languages, but still rely on training sessions for feedback on tone, clarity, and cultural appropriateness. The end result is that they become better at using AI effectively while also sharpening their own language skills.
So, practically speaking, the more AI can cover the mundane aspects of language, the more we humans will focus on the higher-order tasks where our creativity and cultural intelligence shine. In that sense, formal learning—and the deep language capabilities it nurtures—becomes even more critical.
Round 5
Expert B (Educational Psychologist & Pedagogue):
For my final major point, I want to highlight the learning process itself. Formal language study is not just about achieving proficiency; it’s also about the journey of grappling with new sounds, structures, and cultural norms. This journey can foster empathy and global awareness. As learners wrestle with unfamiliar linguistic forms, they become more open-minded and adaptable—traits crucial in a diverse, global workplace and society.
AI shortcuts might reduce motivation to truly engage in this journey, but if structured well, they could also be used to enhance it—offering richer resources, personalized pathways, and real-time support. Formal learning programs can integrate AI in a way that ensures students don’t lose the broader educational benefits.
Expert A (AI Researcher & Language Technologist) responding:
Indeed, the journey matters. There’s an intangible human growth aspect in any deep learning process—language acquisition is no exception. From a technology standpoint, I see the ideal scenario as one where AI acts as a supportive mentor or assistant, accelerating certain stages of learning and offering supplemental practice. But the social and emotional components of language learning require more than an algorithm.
So I’m with you: AI will likely reshape, but not replace, formal learning. The role of the teacher, the structured curriculum, and peer interactions remain irreplaceable for true linguistic and cultural mastery.
Expert C (Applied Linguist & Industry Consultant) responding:
That resonates with what clients in multinational environments repeatedly tell me: they want employees who can communicate as humans—with tact, sensitivity, and cultural awareness. Automated texts or translations can only do so much. Even in high-tech sectors, personal rapport drives successful negotiation and collaboration.
So, the “human journey” of learning a language remains a core value proposition. AI’s growth might shift how we get there—incorporating adaptive platforms, virtual reality conversations, or real-time translation helpers—but it doesn’t take away the end goal of human-centered communication skills.
Round 6
Expert C (Applied Linguist & Industry Consultant):
Lastly, let’s address potential future scenarios. AI might evolve to handle more sophisticated linguistic tasks, including context-sensitive negotiation or near-flawless translation of obscure texts. If that happens, is there a point where formal language learning becomes truly redundant for most people? In my opinion, the demand for nuanced human communication will still persist. Language is deeply tied to personal identity, creativity, and the ability to connect on a profound level.
From an industrial perspective, companies will still invest in language training to ensure their teams can interpret AI outputs and produce original, context-aware content. The risk of an overreliance on AI is that without formal training, people may not notice subtle errors or misunderstandings that could have significant legal, financial, or reputational consequences.
Expert A (AI Researcher & Language Technologist) responding:
Exactly—advanced AI can lull us into a false sense of linguistic security if we’re not equipped to double-check or shape its outputs. Although the technology might become incredibly powerful in translation or generating text, there’s an innate value in having “language intuition,” which is built through study, practice, and cultural immersion.
Even if we reach a point where AI can handle a vast majority of language tasks, those who truly master a language will remain in demand for the most critical scenarios—diplomatic negotiations, branding, marketing, and high-stakes communication. And of course, there’s the intrinsic reward of learning and appreciating a language in all its human richness.
Expert B (Educational Psychologist & Pedagogue) responding:
I concur. Ultimately, formal language learning promotes deeper cognitive and cultural engagement. While AI can ease many practical hurdles, it doesn’t replace the personal growth, social bonding, and cultural insights that come from learning a language in a structured environment. So I see formal language education evolving to incorporate AI, but not disappearing. In the next 5-10 years, we might even witness a renaissance in language learning—where technology empowers learners and educators to focus more on the genuine artistry and human connection that language makes possible.
Concluding perspective
Collectively, the three AI experts in our round-table discussion see a future where AI tools play an increasingly prominent role in supporting language learning—streamlining drills, improving real-time translation, and offering personalized feedback. However, none of them predict that these advancements will make formal language learning irrelevant within the next decade at least. The reasons are manifold: the need for cultural nuance, critical thinking, emotional engagement, and complex communication skills that extend beyond machine capability. AI is poised to complement and enhance formal language education rather than replace it.