I appreciate your optimism, but I think the point is that this isn't a matter of degree of of kind: either you deliberately choose the intellectual life against overwhelming social pressure, or you follow the mob to low-cost automated "engagement." Most students and parents and, perforce, institutions will do the latter. Even many people and institutions inclined toward intellectual exploration will be forced into the cheap, automated, "AI" driven alternative because they lack resources.
In a sense, the etymology of "liberal arts" says it all. The liberal arts were those arts suitable for free people in ancient Greece and Rome, wealthy people who owned slaves and did not have to work for a living and so were free to participate in public life.
I am curious as to why you believe people will pay for an AI-led education when, as far as I can tell, there is little evidence that it is even an education. I feel like the prospect of AI replicating what is already happening in classrooms is not proof of how *good* AI is but rather an exposure of how *meaningless* a lot of college courses are. I don't see why people would opt for a faster and cheaper line of the Emperor's New Clothes.
100% agree. And yet you should see my inbox, filled with "data" that this is exactly what people want. I won't link to it but the Alpha School, which claims it is beating human teachers on every metric. I find AI to be a very helpful tool but not at all a replacement for working with experts.
Thank you for this context. I will check them out. To me it is the same fallacy people use to sell things like Duolingo, where “interest” and “engagement” are equated with learning, and I just don’t see that happening (at least not yet). Show me a kid who can read Plato in Ancient Greek after a year alone with an AI, and I will take notice.
I believe that an AI-driven university model—designed for efficiency and scale—is becoming a reality, if it isn’t one already. People will pay for it, and perhaps more concerning, its affordability and convenience may begin to reshape what society values in education.
That said, I also want to approach this from the perspective of technological affordances. Using AI merely to replicate existing educational systems is neither innovative nor transformative. It depersonalizes learning and displaces human roles, reducing education to a transactional process.
The AI divide that Hollies mentioned tho is very real.
At the same time, I hold hope that we can move toward a more innovative, human-centered application of AI in education—one that we actively define together. In that sense, I fully agree with the idea that education must not be reduced to mere employability. Maybe we should focus on happiness?
The real question isn’t whether embracing AI is intellectual or anti-intellectual, but whether we’re open-minded enough to let it deepen our commitment to critical and analytical thinking. Used wisely, AI can level the playing field, tutoring students in complex texts, offering immediate feedback, and tailoring instruction to individual needs. By democratizing intellectual tools, it has the power to reinvigorate thoughtful inquiry across all levels of society, possibly even reversing the decline in literacy so often lamented here.
Rich kids will get Socratic debates and human mentors. The rest will get AI ‘personalized learning’—i.e., chatbots that babysit them through vocational quizzes.
I am glad I read this in the morning, not before bed!
I attended two intellectual institutions and firmly believe in the life of the mind. But when I think back, the majority of people even then were not really interested in intellect or ideas for ideas sake. Most viewed education as instrumental for achieving some life goal, often but not always wealth.
Maybe intellectual pursuit is just a priesthood in a world the world that wants to pretend to holiness, but not too much.
I really enjoyed this, not least because it introduced me to the "life adjustment" movement with which I was wholly unfamiliar. You might enjoy this essay, which speculates about an AI-driven schism among "knowledge workers" similar to what you see in university education: https://www.hottakes.space/p/how-the-time-machine-explains-the
Many otherwise intelligent Americans cling with pathetic stubbornness to the notion that the people’s right to bear arms is the greatest protection of their individual rights---America as a Gun Culture by Richard Hofstadter
Well said as always, Hollis! I believe that Paracelsus’ “The dose makes the poison” applies just as much to AI as it does to alcohol.
Micro-dose machine learning and it’s a spark.
Overdose it and reality warps.
We must not let the crutch become a prosthetic.
I appreciate your optimism, but I think the point is that this isn't a matter of degree of of kind: either you deliberately choose the intellectual life against overwhelming social pressure, or you follow the mob to low-cost automated "engagement." Most students and parents and, perforce, institutions will do the latter. Even many people and institutions inclined toward intellectual exploration will be forced into the cheap, automated, "AI" driven alternative because they lack resources.
In a sense, the etymology of "liberal arts" says it all. The liberal arts were those arts suitable for free people in ancient Greece and Rome, wealthy people who owned slaves and did not have to work for a living and so were free to participate in public life.
I am curious as to why you believe people will pay for an AI-led education when, as far as I can tell, there is little evidence that it is even an education. I feel like the prospect of AI replicating what is already happening in classrooms is not proof of how *good* AI is but rather an exposure of how *meaningless* a lot of college courses are. I don't see why people would opt for a faster and cheaper line of the Emperor's New Clothes.
100% agree. And yet you should see my inbox, filled with "data" that this is exactly what people want. I won't link to it but the Alpha School, which claims it is beating human teachers on every metric. I find AI to be a very helpful tool but not at all a replacement for working with experts.
Thank you for this context. I will check them out. To me it is the same fallacy people use to sell things like Duolingo, where “interest” and “engagement” are equated with learning, and I just don’t see that happening (at least not yet). Show me a kid who can read Plato in Ancient Greek after a year alone with an AI, and I will take notice.
I think that’s a great challenge. Right now AI would be of very little use for that ambitious student!
I believe that an AI-driven university model—designed for efficiency and scale—is becoming a reality, if it isn’t one already. People will pay for it, and perhaps more concerning, its affordability and convenience may begin to reshape what society values in education.
That said, I also want to approach this from the perspective of technological affordances. Using AI merely to replicate existing educational systems is neither innovative nor transformative. It depersonalizes learning and displaces human roles, reducing education to a transactional process.
The AI divide that Hollies mentioned tho is very real.
At the same time, I hold hope that we can move toward a more innovative, human-centered application of AI in education—one that we actively define together. In that sense, I fully agree with the idea that education must not be reduced to mere employability. Maybe we should focus on happiness?
The real question isn’t whether embracing AI is intellectual or anti-intellectual, but whether we’re open-minded enough to let it deepen our commitment to critical and analytical thinking. Used wisely, AI can level the playing field, tutoring students in complex texts, offering immediate feedback, and tailoring instruction to individual needs. By democratizing intellectual tools, it has the power to reinvigorate thoughtful inquiry across all levels of society, possibly even reversing the decline in literacy so often lamented here.
The tragedy isn’t that AI threatens the life of the mind.
It’s that most campuses traded it away for “belonging” years ago.
AI didn’t break the system. It fits it. Easy, fast, no struggle.
The split isn’t coming. It’s already here.
Rich kids will get Socratic debates and human mentors. The rest will get AI ‘personalized learning’—i.e., chatbots that babysit them through vocational quizzes.
I am glad I read this in the morning, not before bed!
I attended two intellectual institutions and firmly believe in the life of the mind. But when I think back, the majority of people even then were not really interested in intellect or ideas for ideas sake. Most viewed education as instrumental for achieving some life goal, often but not always wealth.
Maybe intellectual pursuit is just a priesthood in a world the world that wants to pretend to holiness, but not too much.
I really enjoyed this, not least because it introduced me to the "life adjustment" movement with which I was wholly unfamiliar. You might enjoy this essay, which speculates about an AI-driven schism among "knowledge workers" similar to what you see in university education: https://www.hottakes.space/p/how-the-time-machine-explains-the
Many otherwise intelligent Americans cling with pathetic stubbornness to the notion that the people’s right to bear arms is the greatest protection of their individual rights---America as a Gun Culture by Richard Hofstadter