After reading most AI articles, hyperbole or not, I feel a simple/obviously not obvious recommendation should be included in each article something to the effect of: "I have done my critical thinking for this article, but, just as we should advise everyone we can, don't blindly accept my critical analysis." Maybe even include steps like: 1. put the article/your views/your role/your end goals/etc. into two/three/five LLMs (AIs) and 2. have it ask you clarifying questions in order to not only fully understand the potential impact, but also, 3. how you can, in whatever rule you have, teach others how to pass down critical thinking skills--whether through, 4. a lesson or simply a conversation on this great article you just read and how you critically validated it for your purposes.
Yes, I fully recognize the irony of not using AI to write up a clearer recommendation for doing critical thinking, but maybe that was the point.
Fantastically informative - I love the explanation of chatbot vs agent. And the aspect of data privacy should shake the attention of all teachers, students, and parents. As a post-secondary teacher one of my biggest concerns is what happens (or doesn't) to my students' brains when the most critical thinking they do is creating the prompts that do their work. Thanks, Nick.
Just as an FYI, at the moment, setting up an agent is very complex for most. The main reason for the reply though, is to point out that crafting a prompt, from this point forward, is going to be the first step in critical thinking of the future. I think it should be a daily assignment, followed by a critical analysis of the response. We will not/should not fight a tsunami. If you really want to fire up synapses, you have to get them thinking outside the box on the subject you're teaching. Would love to hear any ideas for such a feat. Good luck!
Yep. Don't want to fight a tsunami. It'll take transforming lots of the typical research assignments we give. (Way more than that really. But that's a whole different article.) As you point out, the upheaval means figuring out what thinking means in this new context. Comparing results from different prompts and prompt strings is a great idea.
The incursion I've struggled with recently is the appearance of Gemini in my educational institution's Google accounts. Gemini is omnipresent and practically less than a click away for the kids. Google claims that these accounts are protected, and somehow this Gemini-over-the-shoulder fits within FERPA? Distressing and so difficult for the kids to manage.
"The assessment frameworks aren’t there. The instructional models aren’t there. The data governance policies aren’t there." Yet, the pressure to adopt and use whatever the latest versions of these tools is so strong. And, they are available for free since the people selling them have billions and billions to burn in order to get market share.
Great post. Very thoughtful. Quick question. You write "the assessment frameworks aren’t there." It seems clear to me (but I could very well be missing something) that the only path forward for my 9th graders is oral exams and pen-and-paper essays. Given the lack of friction in the digital world (and what agentic AI portends), isn't the only way to assess their knowledge with legitimacy to do so without digital tools? This doesn't mean depriving them of these tools in schools, but if there must be a summative....? Also, I'd love to know your thoughts on Niall Ferguson's framework of the cloister and the starship.
Thanks for your continued insights.
After reading most AI articles, hyperbole or not, I feel a simple/obviously not obvious recommendation should be included in each article something to the effect of: "I have done my critical thinking for this article, but, just as we should advise everyone we can, don't blindly accept my critical analysis." Maybe even include steps like: 1. put the article/your views/your role/your end goals/etc. into two/three/five LLMs (AIs) and 2. have it ask you clarifying questions in order to not only fully understand the potential impact, but also, 3. how you can, in whatever rule you have, teach others how to pass down critical thinking skills--whether through, 4. a lesson or simply a conversation on this great article you just read and how you critically validated it for your purposes.
Yes, I fully recognize the irony of not using AI to write up a clearer recommendation for doing critical thinking, but maybe that was the point.
Please keep them coming!
Fantastically informative - I love the explanation of chatbot vs agent. And the aspect of data privacy should shake the attention of all teachers, students, and parents. As a post-secondary teacher one of my biggest concerns is what happens (or doesn't) to my students' brains when the most critical thinking they do is creating the prompts that do their work. Thanks, Nick.
Just as an FYI, at the moment, setting up an agent is very complex for most. The main reason for the reply though, is to point out that crafting a prompt, from this point forward, is going to be the first step in critical thinking of the future. I think it should be a daily assignment, followed by a critical analysis of the response. We will not/should not fight a tsunami. If you really want to fire up synapses, you have to get them thinking outside the box on the subject you're teaching. Would love to hear any ideas for such a feat. Good luck!
Yep. Don't want to fight a tsunami. It'll take transforming lots of the typical research assignments we give. (Way more than that really. But that's a whole different article.) As you point out, the upheaval means figuring out what thinking means in this new context. Comparing results from different prompts and prompt strings is a great idea.
The incursion I've struggled with recently is the appearance of Gemini in my educational institution's Google accounts. Gemini is omnipresent and practically less than a click away for the kids. Google claims that these accounts are protected, and somehow this Gemini-over-the-shoulder fits within FERPA? Distressing and so difficult for the kids to manage.
"The assessment frameworks aren’t there. The instructional models aren’t there. The data governance policies aren’t there." Yet, the pressure to adopt and use whatever the latest versions of these tools is so strong. And, they are available for free since the people selling them have billions and billions to burn in order to get market share.
Great piece, Nick.
Great post. Very thoughtful. Quick question. You write "the assessment frameworks aren’t there." It seems clear to me (but I could very well be missing something) that the only path forward for my 9th graders is oral exams and pen-and-paper essays. Given the lack of friction in the digital world (and what agentic AI portends), isn't the only way to assess their knowledge with legitimacy to do so without digital tools? This doesn't mean depriving them of these tools in schools, but if there must be a summative....? Also, I'd love to know your thoughts on Niall Ferguson's framework of the cloister and the starship.