Tag Archives: Connectivism

Reaching, Retreating, or Revenue?

I’ve been thinking about AI lately… not just the technology itself, but the motivations we bring to it.

Years ago, when the internet evolved into Web2.0, there was endless discussion about what it was becoming.

I remember watching the original ‘Did you know; Shift Happens‘ video created by Karl Fisch & Scott McLeod and thinking ‘Wow, the world has changed!’

I jumped in excited to explore the possibilities.

Looking back now, it seems that most of what we did and still do online falls into three broad categories: reaching, retreating, or revenue. And now that AI is becoming woven into our everyday lives, I’m wondering if the same idea applies?

Reaching is probably the reason I first fell in love with the web.

The internet allowed me to connect with educators, thinkers, and creators from around the world. It gave me an audience for my writing and a window into the ideas of others. Blogging, social media, online communities… at their best, they are about sharing, connecting, and finding people who help us think in new ways.

AI can support this kind of reaching too. I don’t see AI as something that only replaces sharing, thinking, and human creativity. I see it as a creative partner. Sometimes it pushes back. Sometimes it helps uncover connections I hadn’t noticed. Sometimes it simply helps me get unstuck… but always the potential to help me find connections and learn.

Used this way, AI becomes another tool for extending conversations and exploring ideas.

But not everyone comes online to reach.

Some come to retreat.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with retreating. We all need downtime. We need entertainment, games, stories, videos, and distractions. Sometimes we need a break from the demands of the real world.

The challenge comes when retreating becomes hiding.

The internet can make it easy to spend hours consuming without creating… doom scrolling without reflecting… escaping without returning. AI may amplify that temptation. Why wrestle with a problem if an AI can answer it? Why create something imperfect with disagreeing humans if a machine can generate something polished, and I can tweak it exactly how I want it?

The risk isn’t that AI will think for us. The risk is that we’ll retreat and only engage with AI, and engage less and less with other people and the world around us.

Then there is revenue.

Much of the web runs on it. Much of AI is being built around it. Businesses want efficiency. Creators want audiences. Entrepreneurs want opportunities. None of that is surprising.

What fascinates me is how quickly conversations about any new technology seem to drift toward monetization. A new social platform appears… people ask how to make money from it? AI emerges… people ask how to automate work, build products, or generate income?

Again, there’s nothing wrong with that. But revenue is most powerful when it follows value rather than replacing it as the end goal.

The people who have influenced me most online are not focused on revenue. They are reaching. They are sharing ideas, contributing to conversations, and creating things they care about. Revenue may follow, but it isn’t the reason they started.

So when you decide to use AI, here is a question to ponder:

Am I using this technology to reach, to retreat, or to generate revenue?

The answer will probably be all three at different times. The more important question is which one is driving the others? For me, I hope that reaching always comes first, because the best part of the internet has never been the technology… It has been the people I’ve learned from, connected to, and who have enriched my life. Perhaps one day AI can be added to that group, but for now, it’s still people.

 

Balance and a river of information

Almost 2 years ago now, I had to seriously shift my attitude around online information. I was gullibly trying to read every tweet in my ’stream’ and diligently trying to keep my unread items on Google Reader at a handful. I saw these as pools of information and I wanted to hold on to the information that came into the pool. It was too much. The shift for me was seeing information as a river. Now, I’ll paddle along the stream, but when I get out, I don’t feel the need to pay attention to the stream of information that goes by. It has been liberating.

The key is finding balance rather than being inefficient as I tried to demonstrate in this 4 slide presentation I did for a Connectivism course:


That was the first assignment for the course and it helped me decide to drop out of the course as I tried to seek balance.

I think I’ve made a few points, but if I could make one more it would be that my life still lacks balance and I still spend too much time online… but 3 years ago I would have ‘wasted’ that same amount of time, or more, watching TV. In the wise words of the Comedy Network’s tag-line… to me my online life is ‘Time well wasted’.

~ The idea behind a post I’ve written in my head about 50 times… some day I’ll really expand on this idea on my Pairadimes blog.

The original post for the slide presentation is here: Connectivism, Relationships and Balance. But it is in the comments that the ideas behind the presentation really came out. 

What should we do with tools to make them great? » Online Sapiens

What should we do with tools to make them great?

David Truss (via @sabridv) suggests what we can do with tools to make them great

1. Give students choice
2. Give students a voice.
3. Give students an audience.
4. Give students a place to collaborate.
5. Give students a place to lead.
6. Give students a digital space to learn.

Compare this list to:

– Stephen Downes Connectivism Principles:

1- Autonomy
2- Diversity
3- Openness
4- Interactivity and Connectedness

and to

– Chickering and Gamson Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education

1. encourages contact between students and faculty,
2. develops reciprocity and cooperation among students,
3. encourages active learning,
4. gives prompt feedback,
5. emphasizes time on task,
6. communicates high expectations, and
7. respects diverse talents and ways of learning.

As George Siemens posted, It’s not about tools. It’s about change.

It’s the change underlying these tools that I’m trying to emphasize. Forget blogs…think open dialogue. Forget wikis…think collaboration. Forget podcasts…think democracy of voice. Forget RSS/aggregation…think personal networks. Forget any of the tools…and think instead of the fundamental restructuring of how knowledge is created, disseminated, shared, and validated.

 

Eduardo did a great job of putting together several ideas around the same theme such that the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts!

On my post David Warlick added, “Give the learners a sandbox.”
I like the idea of ‘Play’ and also that he changed ‘students’ to ‘the learners’.