Concerns About AI’s Impact on Education
A recent conversation with someone from a conference sparked a thought about the future of education in light of AI developments. This individual, part of a university curriculum team in Washington State, expressed notable concerns.
They mentioned that many instructors feel sidelined as around 90% of student submissions seem to be AI-generated. It raises an alarming point: students appear to lose essential literacy skills when they rely heavily on AI. Sure, shared interests can foster community, but if AI undermines the personal exchange of culture and knowledge, it could erode vital human connections.
My take on this matter? It’s quite straightforward, honestly.
Education is asked to fulfill too many roles. It’s everything from rites of passage to daycare and even gatekeeping.
In my work with advanced AI, I strive to harness these language models to produce content that feels genuinely human—reflecting real thoughts and insights. You input your ideas, and the output could resemble, say, a news article. But even the most modern models are surprisingly brittle.
If there’s any deviation from the expected input, they falter. It’s almost alarming—can such a fragile technology truly redefine higher education as we know it? Imagining a seminar led by Professor Tolkien reading outputs from ChatGPT raises questions. Why go through such lengths?
In my own seminars, I’ve delved into classics like Plutarch, and I’m not sure there’s a place for AI-generated content in that context. Nevertheless, I see AI akin to a wildfire—while it might clear the deadwood and rejuvenate the soil, there are risks.
For those truly eager to learn, it’s about guiding them on how to use AI effectively. Clarify that using AI can be beneficial—but misusing it will certainly hold them back. Most will likely choose the right path when informed.
It’s similar to physical training. If someone wishes to bulk up, simply lifting weights is often insufficient—they need proper resistance training to gain strength.
Yet, there’s a flip side. Some folks might just want to check boxes, aiming for recognition or approval from parents or peers. For them, shortcuts, including AI, become tempting. Honestly, I’m not keen on allocating educational resources for that mindset.
Ultimately, education should cater foremost to those with genuine curiosity. Unfortunately, we often burden it with needless expectations—turning it into a pass-through for qualifications, daycare, and more.
Reflecting on my experiences with my daughters, I notice their intense enthusiasm when pursuing subjects they love—be it painting, the beauty of Iceland, algebra, or music trivia. But when it comes to tasks that feel like mere checkboxes, we often reevaluate their value. If we deem them worth the effort, they’ll engage—but usually only halfway. And if something seems pointless, crafting shortcuts makes sense to preserve their time for more meaningful pursuits.
This leads me to ponder: what do you do with the time you save from taking shortcuts? Is it squandered, or is it genuinely invested elsewhere?
This question also applies to news organizations utilizing AI tools. When they reclaim time, are they just churning out more mediocre content—or are they channeling that saved time into more substantial stories?
Interestingly, I don’t believe that generating lesser quality content will be the default response. In fact, better, thoughtful reporting may emerge because, ultimately, that’s what audiences value and are willing to support.
