True. I think those faculty who can are turning to in-class writing and oral presentations for demonstration purposes. Still, I have to accept that AI devalues these abilities within a neoliberal economic environment.
The question for me, though, is whether or not we can trust that students who rely on AI to do all of this fundamental work for them are actually prepared to do the higher level work that is suggested here. Both on an individual level—can a student without general knowledge in a domain function at a higher level and know what questions to ask/what patterns to look for, etc.?—and on a societal level—do we really want to invest into a system in which eventually there will be no humans left who ever had to write or think without relying on the level of “guidance” or whatever by AI?
Maybe I’m still naive as to how far gone we already are. But I would point out that at this point, even those of us who are so positive about the role AI can perhaps play as it is incorporated into education learned our fundamental skills and research and thinking behaviors without relying on AI. And that learning required…not using AI. I am not convinced AI is just like using calculators. Or rather, I’m not convinced that what calculators allow us not to do ourselves is as important as what AI allows us to outsource.
I just read this article this morning so this is partially where some of my thoughts are coming from:
This is the conversation we need to be having. I'm not sure the best answer except that leaving it in the hands of the bureaucracy to adjudicate is not the answer.
Core knowledge of Hirsh comes to mind, how one must have certain pieces of knowledge inside their brain before they can attempt to reconstruct more complex upstream concepts (or even understand what is going on)...
Ie, the goal should not be knowing history of discovery per se, but rather what does it mean when X occurred, but no other data point is yet available, hence, one remembers similar occurrence of Y and Z.
Because AI ("I have no I") algorithms can't determine that Y is similar enough to X, unless told by human; and for human to do that they need to possess "core knowledge".
I don't think most students have the slightest interest in learning about 'how scholarly communities discover, validate, and create new knowledge.' They'll only be part of a scholarly community temporarily if at all, and walking up to an employer with this as your sales pitch about what you learned in school is unfortunately laughable.
This is a laudable goal that I personally agree with. I fully see its value. I also think it's a reasonably AI-proof skill. But restructuring the university around this principle would be deliberately courting a smaller and smaller audience of potential students. I think we need to recognize that 'scholarly community' actually codes negatively in the public mind. There's a culture war and academe is losing.
The proposed shift towards 'epistemological inquiry' and teaching students how we know what we know is inspiring. The emphasis on primary sources, research methodologies, and the human processes of discovery and verification offers a clear and valuable new role for universities. This vision clearly positions human endeavor as distinct from AI capabilities. Well said Hollis!
But the figurative student in this essay has not, herself, demonstrated anything: the AI has.
Yes but the current system makes turning in an essay acceptable as a demonstration
True. I think those faculty who can are turning to in-class writing and oral presentations for demonstration purposes. Still, I have to accept that AI devalues these abilities within a neoliberal economic environment.
The question for me, though, is whether or not we can trust that students who rely on AI to do all of this fundamental work for them are actually prepared to do the higher level work that is suggested here. Both on an individual level—can a student without general knowledge in a domain function at a higher level and know what questions to ask/what patterns to look for, etc.?—and on a societal level—do we really want to invest into a system in which eventually there will be no humans left who ever had to write or think without relying on the level of “guidance” or whatever by AI?
Maybe I’m still naive as to how far gone we already are. But I would point out that at this point, even those of us who are so positive about the role AI can perhaps play as it is incorporated into education learned our fundamental skills and research and thinking behaviors without relying on AI. And that learning required…not using AI. I am not convinced AI is just like using calculators. Or rather, I’m not convinced that what calculators allow us not to do ourselves is as important as what AI allows us to outsource.
I just read this article this morning so this is partially where some of my thoughts are coming from:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-i-learned-serving-on-my-universitys-ai-committee
This is the conversation we need to be having. I'm not sure the best answer except that leaving it in the hands of the bureaucracy to adjudicate is not the answer.
Core knowledge of Hirsh comes to mind, how one must have certain pieces of knowledge inside their brain before they can attempt to reconstruct more complex upstream concepts (or even understand what is going on)...
Ie, the goal should not be knowing history of discovery per se, but rather what does it mean when X occurred, but no other data point is yet available, hence, one remembers similar occurrence of Y and Z.
Because AI ("I have no I") algorithms can't determine that Y is similar enough to X, unless told by human; and for human to do that they need to possess "core knowledge".
I don't think most students have the slightest interest in learning about 'how scholarly communities discover, validate, and create new knowledge.' They'll only be part of a scholarly community temporarily if at all, and walking up to an employer with this as your sales pitch about what you learned in school is unfortunately laughable.
This is a laudable goal that I personally agree with. I fully see its value. I also think it's a reasonably AI-proof skill. But restructuring the university around this principle would be deliberately courting a smaller and smaller audience of potential students. I think we need to recognize that 'scholarly community' actually codes negatively in the public mind. There's a culture war and academe is losing.
I have learned that just as I wrote this the SUNY system announced it is updating its general education curriculum to include AI and civil discourse. Excellent. https://www.suny.edu/suny-news/press-releases/1-25/1-7-25/general-education.html
The proposed shift towards 'epistemological inquiry' and teaching students how we know what we know is inspiring. The emphasis on primary sources, research methodologies, and the human processes of discovery and verification offers a clear and valuable new role for universities. This vision clearly positions human endeavor as distinct from AI capabilities. Well said Hollis!