Well, not to sound like a total cynic, but I think part of the answer to the "AI question" is money. Corporations like Google have invested massively in these technologies. Now it's time to figure out how to harvest some return on that investment. They also want to do that in a way that fits their larger business model.
Within this, perhaps, AI is just like self-driving cars. The more tasks google can automate for you, whether it's driving or writing a letter, the more time you have to search, swipe, and be monetized. None of that is about human flourishing.
Onto your question about how to capture and foster human creativity in the classroom. I think it starts with figuring our human ways to interact with students. Watching a teacher layout their points on a chalkboard is much more captivating than a series of PowerPoint slides. Even though, objectively, the slides may be more legible and shareable.
A teacher reading a story or a poem aloud to her class is more engaging that listening to a recording of someone else do it. Again, even if the other person is objectively a better reader. The teacher in the room is interactive, she is in touch with the class, and they are in touch with her.
These are just two examples, but I think they get at the "Bob Ross factor" you mentioned.
I don't think you're being too cynical at all. I think a lot of it comes down to money. Honestly, I don't see how they make too much money off Gen-AI. So, they are reaching to find use cases that don't really exist.
Thank you, Jasin! Your article is spot on. Other day I was reading Houellebecq sharing his thoughts on Schopenhauer. I wonder if there is a place for human intuition in the post AI world? Could it be replaced by predictive analytics and data models? Collective reinforcement of ethical AI act must be safeguarding humanity.
Such a great post! My 12yo kid (and I, but it was important to me to let her have her reaction without me shaping it) was so horrified by that commercial about writing a letter. Her take was “But then your letter wouldn’t be meaningful, because it’s not coming from you, it’s Gemini’s words not yours!”
Damned straight, kiddo. (I mean, she’s heard some of my rants before, but this was 100% her reaction, I hadn’t said a thing about the ad.)
Gives me hope to see so many people rejecting the dystopian vision that Google et al. are trying to push us into, and your post so perfectly captures what’s missing in that vision.
Well, not to sound like a total cynic, but I think part of the answer to the "AI question" is money. Corporations like Google have invested massively in these technologies. Now it's time to figure out how to harvest some return on that investment. They also want to do that in a way that fits their larger business model.
Within this, perhaps, AI is just like self-driving cars. The more tasks google can automate for you, whether it's driving or writing a letter, the more time you have to search, swipe, and be monetized. None of that is about human flourishing.
Onto your question about how to capture and foster human creativity in the classroom. I think it starts with figuring our human ways to interact with students. Watching a teacher layout their points on a chalkboard is much more captivating than a series of PowerPoint slides. Even though, objectively, the slides may be more legible and shareable.
A teacher reading a story or a poem aloud to her class is more engaging that listening to a recording of someone else do it. Again, even if the other person is objectively a better reader. The teacher in the room is interactive, she is in touch with the class, and they are in touch with her.
These are just two examples, but I think they get at the "Bob Ross factor" you mentioned.
I love those points and ideas.
I don't think you're being too cynical at all. I think a lot of it comes down to money. Honestly, I don't see how they make too much money off Gen-AI. So, they are reaching to find use cases that don't really exist.
Thank you, Jasin! Your article is spot on. Other day I was reading Houellebecq sharing his thoughts on Schopenhauer. I wonder if there is a place for human intuition in the post AI world? Could it be replaced by predictive analytics and data models? Collective reinforcement of ethical AI act must be safeguarding humanity.
I agree!
I think we'll need to work hard to preserve truth, beauty, and intuition in this world.
Google and OpenAI won't do that.
Such a great post! My 12yo kid (and I, but it was important to me to let her have her reaction without me shaping it) was so horrified by that commercial about writing a letter. Her take was “But then your letter wouldn’t be meaningful, because it’s not coming from you, it’s Gemini’s words not yours!”
Damned straight, kiddo. (I mean, she’s heard some of my rants before, but this was 100% her reaction, I hadn’t said a thing about the ad.)
Gives me hope to see so many people rejecting the dystopian vision that Google et al. are trying to push us into, and your post so perfectly captures what’s missing in that vision.
I love that so much. Your kid gets it!
It's so interesting (and depressing) to me, because these companies can't seen to figure out the use cases, even if we can.
There are many good uses of this technology. Offloading a kid's letter or having a pennant so that we're never ever along are not them!
Go back to principles, Google. We're offload things that are dull, disturbing, or dangerous. Not creative things we love and that show we care.
I use ChatGPT to brainstorm, a task that is fun for me but that would be very dull for someone else. I wouldn't write my wedding vows with it.
Thank you, Jason. That commercial has ruffled many feathers and opened the conversation. I'm very glad you covered it.
Thank you, Maryellen!
I've been thinking a lot about it, and what it tells us.