Interesting, insightful and important points. Although I have long resonated with the view that both cognition and language is "extended" and ecosystemic rather than internal states or possessions, I think you are right that "our current AIs have the potential to fundamentally alter our relationship with language and, by extension, our sense of self". Not quite sure what that would look like, but it is likely to not be positive.
As much as I often slip into a self-consoling view that genAI are language affordances (perhaps an occupational hazard as a foreign language teacher), they do seem to be much more, especially when they become integral to the writing experience (brainstorming, planning, writing, and revising).
I just finished reading JURGEN GRAVESTEIN's Substack piece on whether AI makes us less creative, which echoes your questions of "How does [genAI use] affect our understanding of creativity?" and perhaps the most pressing concern in education and L&D, "how might this impact our students' development of critical thinking skills?"
GenAI users can easily outsource skill and creativity to genAI. And in so doing, they shift the traditional human role of creator to evaluator, but this assumes that they have the skill, knowledge and expertise to evaluate.
So, how do we train our learners to not only use genAI but also become competent in skills and knowledge to allow them to critically evaluate genAI output? This is a tightrope balancing act at precarious heights.
Nick, I have been thinking along these lines, without the immersion in an AI, as I read Shannon Vallor, The AI Mirror: How to Reclaim Our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking (OUP, 2024). If you have not read it yet, I strongly encourage you to do so. For me, both what she writes and your recent experience highlight the need for teaching students to both reflect deeply on their experiences and to learn techniques to help them avoid thinking like machines.
A couple of non-AI books also come to mind. One is Matthew B. Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.) I particularly recommend the chapter on the pipe organ builders.
More controversially, you might want to look at the work of the neuropsychologist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist. His book, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (Yale, 2009), gives some good historical context, though the specifically neurological portions are controversial.
I am old enough that we had no computers in my high school and I only bought one in my mid twenties. This was pre-WWW, but I had read Ted Nelson a few years before and became fascinated with his ideas of hypertext. I think computers changed my thought processes even before I had used them extensively. It was experimenting with reading books on a computer or mobile device that finally led me to the sort of reflection you did with the spreadsheets. For me that was in my late forties.
I guess you are never too old for this sort of thing, but how old does a child need to be to engage in this sort of reflection?
Having read your piece this morning I see I need to go revise the post I have been struggling with over the weekend some more.
I like your description of the intense focus AI evokes during hardcore digging in to finish a cycle of work. It’s definitely adrenaline infused time. I do think you need a break, Nick. Too much time with the bot doing heavy lifting can be exhilarating but draining. Important issues too remember
This essay brought to mind this passage from Walden:
But lo! men have become the tools of their tools. The man who independently plucked the fruits when he was hungry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a tree for shelter, a housekeeper. We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven.
Yes, Nigel, that is the core question I want to continue to explore this year. Do you know of anyone doing research in that area? Impact on critical thinking? Trade offs: possibility generator vs. thought inhibitor?
Interesting, insightful and important points. Although I have long resonated with the view that both cognition and language is "extended" and ecosystemic rather than internal states or possessions, I think you are right that "our current AIs have the potential to fundamentally alter our relationship with language and, by extension, our sense of self". Not quite sure what that would look like, but it is likely to not be positive.
As much as I often slip into a self-consoling view that genAI are language affordances (perhaps an occupational hazard as a foreign language teacher), they do seem to be much more, especially when they become integral to the writing experience (brainstorming, planning, writing, and revising).
I just finished reading JURGEN GRAVESTEIN's Substack piece on whether AI makes us less creative, which echoes your questions of "How does [genAI use] affect our understanding of creativity?" and perhaps the most pressing concern in education and L&D, "how might this impact our students' development of critical thinking skills?"
GenAI users can easily outsource skill and creativity to genAI. And in so doing, they shift the traditional human role of creator to evaluator, but this assumes that they have the skill, knowledge and expertise to evaluate.
So, how do we train our learners to not only use genAI but also become competent in skills and knowledge to allow them to critically evaluate genAI output? This is a tightrope balancing act at precarious heights.
Nick, I have been thinking along these lines, without the immersion in an AI, as I read Shannon Vallor, The AI Mirror: How to Reclaim Our Humanity in an Age of Machine Thinking (OUP, 2024). If you have not read it yet, I strongly encourage you to do so. For me, both what she writes and your recent experience highlight the need for teaching students to both reflect deeply on their experiences and to learn techniques to help them avoid thinking like machines.
A couple of non-AI books also come to mind. One is Matthew B. Crawford, The World Beyond Your Head: On Becoming an Individual in an Age of Distraction (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2015.) I particularly recommend the chapter on the pipe organ builders.
More controversially, you might want to look at the work of the neuropsychologist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist. His book, The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World (Yale, 2009), gives some good historical context, though the specifically neurological portions are controversial.
I am old enough that we had no computers in my high school and I only bought one in my mid twenties. This was pre-WWW, but I had read Ted Nelson a few years before and became fascinated with his ideas of hypertext. I think computers changed my thought processes even before I had used them extensively. It was experimenting with reading books on a computer or mobile device that finally led me to the sort of reflection you did with the spreadsheets. For me that was in my late forties.
I guess you are never too old for this sort of thing, but how old does a child need to be to engage in this sort of reflection?
Having read your piece this morning I see I need to go revise the post I have been struggling with over the weekend some more.
I like your description of the intense focus AI evokes during hardcore digging in to finish a cycle of work. It’s definitely adrenaline infused time. I do think you need a break, Nick. Too much time with the bot doing heavy lifting can be exhilarating but draining. Important issues too remember
Great piece. I need to investigate the NSW since relationship with AI will get only more complex in time.
This essay brought to mind this passage from Walden:
But lo! men have become the tools of their tools. The man who independently plucked the fruits when he was hungry is become a farmer; and he who stood under a tree for shelter, a housekeeper. We now no longer camp as for a night, but have settled down on earth and forgotten heaven.
Yes, Nigel, that is the core question I want to continue to explore this year. Do you know of anyone doing research in that area? Impact on critical thinking? Trade offs: possibility generator vs. thought inhibitor?