This piece helps me think about the distance between now and 2023. Thank you for setting the strawman of “the AI enthusiast” on fire. I’ve been guilty of caricaturing this guy, and his alter ego, “the AI skeptic.” It isn’t that those extremes don’t exist…it’s that they are not particularly interesting or useful.
Far better to talk about people doing interesting work with generative AI in the classroom while also asking critical questions about how the tools are being developed and commercialized. Or, look to skeptics who are worried about the educational effects of AI chatbots, but who also recognize that their concerns mean engaging with students to think critically about technology.
The second thing is that you continue to develop a vision of pragmatism, what I’ve started calling “process philosophy,” as the theoretical context for our work. John Dewey is central to this, but as you describe it here, any educator thinking carefully about their work and approaching it experimentally is working in this cultural tradition.
Generative AI is a new cultural technology. To understand its value, we need less name-calling and demands to pick a side, and more attention to the methods of critical inquiry that Nick describes in this short piece.
Thanks, Rob!!! It is amazing to have you engage with my work. Yes, the same pragmatic core here, but I keep adapting in light of the new discoveries about AI. I hope to train a whole cohort of scholars and students to deconstruct AI outputs.
I agree with your considerations, in Italy this dispute is very heated, and the vast majority of teachers snubble AI tools by entrenching themselves behind a fake moral superiority.
I agree wholeheartedly Rob. Nick’s focus on what we’re calling the “irreducible core of the discipline” as the nexus providing gateways to pragmatic models of use across the curriculum solves the chameleon problem. AI is whatever it is instructed to be; instruction is discipline specific and functions inside pervasive and established discourse communities. Once learners grasp how to interact across these discourses, AI can become a powerful amplifier.
Then redefine the problem, AI being implemented poorly.
If you're looking for an "AI Enthusiast" try Google. They have a monopoly position on our schools and they are pushing AI down our throats with zero collaboration. Embedded in Google Classroom and Google Collab with worst possible practices for how it is designed. And EdTech Consultants tell us it's an opportunity to teach kids about ...
Lol, The person that came to mind for me is Gary Marcus who is constantly fighting against the 'Enthusiast.' He's constantly proving how we are no-where near AGI while I'm not finding anyone who thinks LLMs are getting close to AGI (let's just say no credible people, a few idiots anthromoporphizing) but Marcus has made a ecosystem on 'take downs' of the 'enthusiest' so... maybe that's where it comes from?
This piece helps me think about the distance between now and 2023. Thank you for setting the strawman of “the AI enthusiast” on fire. I’ve been guilty of caricaturing this guy, and his alter ego, “the AI skeptic.” It isn’t that those extremes don’t exist…it’s that they are not particularly interesting or useful.
Far better to talk about people doing interesting work with generative AI in the classroom while also asking critical questions about how the tools are being developed and commercialized. Or, look to skeptics who are worried about the educational effects of AI chatbots, but who also recognize that their concerns mean engaging with students to think critically about technology.
The second thing is that you continue to develop a vision of pragmatism, what I’ve started calling “process philosophy,” as the theoretical context for our work. John Dewey is central to this, but as you describe it here, any educator thinking carefully about their work and approaching it experimentally is working in this cultural tradition.
Generative AI is a new cultural technology. To understand its value, we need less name-calling and demands to pick a side, and more attention to the methods of critical inquiry that Nick describes in this short piece.
Thanks, Rob!!! It is amazing to have you engage with my work. Yes, the same pragmatic core here, but I keep adapting in light of the new discoveries about AI. I hope to train a whole cohort of scholars and students to deconstruct AI outputs.
I agree with your considerations, in Italy this dispute is very heated, and the vast majority of teachers snubble AI tools by entrenching themselves behind a fake moral superiority.
I agree wholeheartedly Rob. Nick’s focus on what we’re calling the “irreducible core of the discipline” as the nexus providing gateways to pragmatic models of use across the curriculum solves the chameleon problem. AI is whatever it is instructed to be; instruction is discipline specific and functions inside pervasive and established discourse communities. Once learners grasp how to interact across these discourses, AI can become a powerful amplifier.
I’m interested please
Send me a DM, Malachy!
Done and thanks
First create a straw-man --> the AI enthusiast.
Then redefine the problem, AI being implemented poorly.
If you're looking for an "AI Enthusiast" try Google. They have a monopoly position on our schools and they are pushing AI down our throats with zero collaboration. Embedded in Google Classroom and Google Collab with worst possible practices for how it is designed. And EdTech Consultants tell us it's an opportunity to teach kids about ...
Lol, The person that came to mind for me is Gary Marcus who is constantly fighting against the 'Enthusiast.' He's constantly proving how we are no-where near AGI while I'm not finding anyone who thinks LLMs are getting close to AGI (let's just say no credible people, a few idiots anthromoporphizing) but Marcus has made a ecosystem on 'take downs' of the 'enthusiest' so... maybe that's where it comes from?