tldr

I recently spoke to a teacher about the impacts of AI on education, and to my surprise encounted a very frosty response.

Teacher Conversation: The Human Says No

Recently, at a friend’s birthday party, By chance I was sitting by a history teacher. As someone who interested in the impact of AI careers and industries I asked him his thoughts.

This resulted in a conversation that left me both reflective and intrigued. This blog post is a deep dive into that encounter and the broader themes it raised.

1. The Instant Freeze: When AI Sparks Resistance

Our conversation began with a seemingly offhand question about the impact of AI on education. To my surprise, his reaction was immediate,a sudden freeze, as if the topic was both obvious and tedious. He firmly stated that AI would have between zero and a negative effect on education. According to him, how people learn is a “solved” problem, firmly rooted in analogue processes.

His perspective was not just dismissive but absolute. He cited an example where a student had handed in an essay, mixing up historical figures and ideologies, combining Karl Marx and Adam Smith into a non-existent persona like “Karl Smith” or “Adam Marx.” For him, such instances were symptomatic of the broader issues that AI might exacerbate in education rather than enhance it.

We talked about cheating. When I asked that perhaps we need to change the way we assess students, there was no relection that this would even be possible.

2. Counterpoint: My Take on AI

Not long into the conversation, I shared my experiences as a software developer with over 20 years in the field. I expressed admiration for AI’s capabilities, noting that in many ways AI has proven to be a more effective “developer” than I could ever be. I left it open for readers to draw their own conclusions from myriad professional encounters, raising questions about the adaptability and potential of such technology.

The teacher, however, remained steadfast in his belief. He theorized that while AI might struggle with “facts” he opined that code, being a different beast, might offer some promise. Yet, he was quick to add that AI’s training on the vast, messy corpus of the internet only imbued it with bias and what he called “slop.”

3. Key Insights from the Conversation

Reflecting on my interaction, several insights stood out:

  • A Preconceived Conclusion: The teacher’s stance revealed a complete lack of curiosity. His predetermined conclusion made it impossible to engage in a nuanced discussion or entertain the possibility of change.

  • A Solved Domain: He firmly believed that his field was essentially “solved” and that his role in it was now secure, a viewpoint that disregarded the rapid changes and challenges evolving in education.

  • Avoidance of Revisiting Settled Arguments: The conversation underscored his disdain for revisiting “settled” arguments. While concerns about AI hallucinations might have held some weight in the past, recent advancements have significantly mitigated these issues. His refusal to consider new evidence or perspectives was, in itself, a disservice to the progress of educational conversations.

4. Personal Reflections: The Human Says No

What struck me most was the stark contrast between his inflexible stance and my own innate curiosity. The conversation was a reminder that, even amidst rapid technological advancement, human perspectives can sometimes be stubbornly resistant to change. His repeated assertions that AI would remain flawed and constrained by its “slop” felt less like a measured critique and more like a defensive reaction from someone whose comfort zone was firmly entrenched in traditional methods.

As a software developer constantly faced with the evolution of technology, I see immense potential in AI, not as a perfect tool, but as one that evolves with its use. This difference in outlook reminds me of the age-old clash between tradition and innovation, a conversation that isn’t easily settled.

5. Conclusion: Reflecting on the Future of Education and Technology

The conversation with the history teacher left me pondering deeper questions about the future of education, the integration of AI, and the essence of intellectual curiosity. Is settling for a “solved” problem a safe harbor, or is it a trap that prevents us from embracing progress? As we witness technological improvements and ever-evolving pedagogical approaches, perhaps it’s time to revisit even the “settled” arguments.

In the end, the human element, with its capacity to say no, also has the capacity to say yes,to new ideas, to innovation, and to learning in more dynamic and revolutionary ways. What do you think? Can we balance the wisdom of age with the promise of technology, or are we set to remain in our comfortable, yet stagnant, approaches?

Feel free to share your thoughts and join the conversation, your insights could very well be the spark that turns a simple discussion into a transformative dialogue.