Natasha Singer has told readers of The New York Times that "Tech Giants" are "Racing To Add A.I. To Schools Around The World." Just click that link to read all about it.
Let me tell you, however, before you do click that link, that the Natasha Singer who wrote the article I am linking is a technology reporter, and is not the vocalist from the Dominican Republic, who is, I am betting, considerably more "famous" than The Times' reporter. Let me also say that while the hardcopy version of The Times' headline is different, The Times reveals in its online headline that not everyone thinks that adding A.I. to schools is a great boon to humanity. "Skeptics Raise Concerns," is how that web-based headline puts it.
It will be no surprise to anyone who regularly reads my blog postings that I am personally skeptical of the benefits of A.I.. In fact, "largely opposed to," instead of "skeptical of," is how I would chart my thoughts about disseminating A.I. to schools - or to anywhere else, for that matter. My blog posting yesterday discussed that very topic.
Here is an excerpt from the Times' article that reflects the kind of concerns I have:
A recent study from Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon University found that popular A.I. chatbots may diminish critical thinking. A.I. bots can produce authoritative-sounding errors and misinformation, and some teachers are grappling with widespread A.I.-assisted student cheating.
Silicon Valley for years has pushed tech tools like laptops and learning apps into classrooms, with promises of improving education access and revolutionizing learning.
Still, a global effort to expand school computer access — a program known as “One Laptop per Child” — did not improve students’ cognitive skills or academic outcomes, according to studies by professors and economists of hundreds of schools in Peru. Now, as some tech boosters make similar education access and fairness arguments for A.I., children’s agencies like UNICEF are urging caution and calling for more guidance for schools.
“With One Laptop per Child, the fallouts included wasted expenditure and poor learning outcomes,” Steven Vosloo, a digital policy specialist at UNICEF, wrote in a recent post. “Unguided use of A.I. systems may actively de-skill students and teachers.”
I think that using A.I. will not only "de-skill" students and teachers; it will "de-skill" anyone who relies on A.I. in connection with trying to "think" about something. A.I., in fact, deemphasizes the need to "think" in the first place. Want a poem to serenade your sweetheart? Want to find out how inflation has affected the nation, over the years? Want to...... whatever? If all you need to do is to ask your friendly A.I. Chatbot, you will never have to comb through obscure reports, or think about how to make your verses melodious.
Wasn't there an effort, one time, to get people to understand that the following phrase was actually the right way to think about using drugs:
This is, in my opinion, exactly how to think about the "usefulness" of A.I..
Image Credits:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your comment!