Tag Archives: future

Digital distraction

Last night we went out for a wonderful dinner. I’m the restaurant we had a booth next to a round table which had a mother and 3 daughters. I’d guess the kid’s ages to be about 7, 12, and 14. My youngest daughter was sitting next to me and whispered, “They are all on devices.”

When I looked, the 7 year old had an Anime video playing on her laptop, which was about 8-10 inches (20-25cm) from her face. The 12 year old had over-ear headphones on and was endlessly scrolling on social media. The 14 year old was opposite me and all I could see was that she had one earbud in, on the far side of her mom, and she was bouncing between drawing (she definitely had some art skills) and scrolling on her phone.

The whole table sat in what was mostly silence, eating slowly. This continued from the time they sat down until we left the restaurant.

My daughter then pointed out the table behind us where a boy, about 5, had his face over a tablet, his face lit up from the light off of it, since he was so close to it.

It’s the era of digital babysitting, digital distractions, but creating distraction from what? Mealtime, family time, conversation, social engagement? …All of the above.

I think this form of distraction is fundamentally changing the way we socialize and this will affect our sense of family, community, and culture.

What happens when our screens become more important than the people around us?

AI, Batman, and the Borg

In one of my earliest blog posts, originally written back in November 2006, I wrote:

“I come from the Batman era, adding items to my utility belt while students today are the Borg from Star Trek, assimilating technology into their lives.”

I later noted that students were not the ‘digital natives’ I thought they were. Then I went back and forth on the idea a few times on my blog after that, ultimately looking more at ‘digital exposure‘ and not lumping students/kids together as digital immigrants or natives, but rather seeing that everyone is on a spectrum based on their exposure and interest.

Many of us are already a blend of Batman and Borg. We wear glasses and hearing aids that assist and improve our senses. We track our fitness on our phones and smart watches. We even have pacemakers that keep our hearts regular when our bodies don’t do a good job of it. In a more ubiquitous use of smart tools, almost all of us count on our phones to share maps with us, and we can even get an augmented view of the world with directions showing up superimposed on our camera view.

How else are we going to be augmenting our reality with new AI tools in the next 10 to 20 years?

We now have tools that can: read and help us respond to emails; decide our next meal based on the ingredients we have in our fridge; plan our next vacation; and even drive us to our destination without our assistance.

What’s next?

I know there are some ideas in the works that I’m excited to see developed. For example, I’m looking forward to getting glasses or contact lenses with full heads-up display information. I’m walking up to someone and their name becomes visible to me on a virtual screen. I look at a phone number and I can call it with an eye gesture. I see something I want to know more about, anything from an object, to a building, to a person, and I can learn more with a gesture.

I don’t think this technology is too far away. But what else are we in store for? What new tools are we adding to our utility belts, what new technologies are going to enhance our senses?

I used to make a Batman/Borg comparison to look at how we add versus integrate technology into our lives, but I think everyone will be doing more and more of both. The questions going forward are how much do we add, how reliant do we get, and how different will we be as a result? Would 2024 me even recognize the integrated capabilities of 2044 me, or will that future me be as foreign and advanced as a person from 1924 looking at a person in 2024?

I’m excited about the possibilities!

Is Generative AI “just a tool”?

Dean Shareski asks,

Is Generative AI “just a tool”? When it comes to technology, the “just a tool” phrase has been used for decades. I understand the sentiment in that it suggests that as humans, we are in control and it simply responds to our lead. But I worry that this at times, diminishes the potential and also suggests that it’s neutral which many argue that technology is never neutral. I’d love to know what you think, is Generative AI “just a tool”?

My quick answer is ‘No’, because as Dean suggests tools have never been neutral.

Here are some things I’ve said before in ‘Transformative or just flashy educational tools?‘. This was 13 years ago, and I too used the term, ‘just a tool’:

“A tool is just a tool! I can use a hammer to build a house and I can use the same hammer on a human skull. It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.

A complimentary point: If I have a hammer and try to use it as a screwdriver, I won’t get much value from its’ use.”

My main message was, “A tool is just a tool! It’s not the tool, but how you use it that matters.”

I went on to ask, “What should we do with tools to make them great?” And I gave 6 suggestions:

  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 place to learn

This evolved into a presentation, 7 Ways to Transform Your Classroom, but going back to Dean’s question, first of all I don’t think technology is ever neutral. I also think that technology need not be transformative yet always has the potential to be so if it really does advance capabilities beyond what was available before. So the problem is really about the term ‘just’ in ‘just a tool’. Nothing is just a tool. Generative AI is not “just a tool”.

We respond to technology, and technology transforms us. Just like Marshal McLuhan proposed that the communication medium itself, not the messages it carries, is what really matters, “The medium is the message”, the technology is the transformer, it alters us by our use of it, it is the medium that becomes the message.

Generative AI is going to transform a lot of both simple and complex tasks, a lot of jobs, and ultimately us.

What does this mean for schools, and for teaching and learning? There will be teachers and students trying to do old things in new ways, using AI like we used a thesaurus, a calculator, Wikipedia, and other tools to ‘enhance’ what we could do before. There will also be innovative teachers using AI to co-create assignments and to answer new questions, co-write essays, and co-produce images and movies.

There will be students using generative AI to do their work for them. There will be teachers fearing these tools, there will be teachers trying to police their use, and it’s going to get messy… That said, we will see more and more generative AI being the avenue through which students are themselves designing tasks and conceiving of new ways to use these tools.

And of course we will see innovative teachers using these tools in new ways…

How different is a marketing class when AI is helping students start a business and market a product with a $25 budget to actually get it going?

How different is a debate where generative AI is listening and assisting in response to the opposing team’s rebuttal?

How different are the special effects in an AI assisted movie? How much stronger is the AI assisted plot line? How much greater is the audience when the final product is shared online, with AI assisted search engine optimization?

Technology is not ‘just a tool’. We are going to respond to Generative AI and Generative AI is going to transform us. It is not just going to disrupt education, it’s going to disrupt our job market, our social media (it already has), and our daily lives. Many other tools, will not be just like the tools that came before them… changes will be accelerated, and the future is exciting.

‘Just a tool’ is deceiving and I have to agree with Dean that it underplays the possibilities of how these tools can be truly transformative. I’m not sure I would have said this 13 years ago, but I also didn’t see technology being as transformative back then. Generative AI isn’t a flash in the pan, it’s not something trendy that’s going to fade in popularity. No, it’s a tool that’s going to completely change landscapes… and ultimately us.

Alien perspective

I think jokes like this are funny:

…because they hold a bit of truth.

We aren’t all that intelligent.

We draw imaginary lines on the globe to separate us. We fight wars in the name of angry Gods that are more concerned with our devotion than for peace and love. We care more about greed than about the environment. We spend more on weapons of destruction than we do on feeding the needy. We judge each other on superficial differences. We have unbelievable intellect, capable of incredible technological advancement, yet we let our monkey brains prevail.

Sure we exhibit some intelligence, we are intelligent viruses.

At least that’s what I think an objective alien visiting our planet would think.

Conversation on an alien ship observing earth:

“Give them another 100 years… if they figure out how to not kill each other and the planet, then let’s introduce ourselves.”

Right now I’m not terribly optimistic about what those aliens will find in our future? ‘Civilized’ humans? A desolate planet? Artificial intelligence treating us like we treat ‘unintelligent’ animals? Or more of the same bickering, posturing, warring, and separatist views of humans trying to usurp dominance over each other?

It would be funny if it wasn’t sad.

Intolerance for bad faith actors

I have always been a pretty strong advocate for free speech. To me it’s the underpinning of a robust democratic society. We don’t have to like what someone says, but they have a right to say it as long as it isn’t hate speech or harmful to someone. We shouldn’t allow racism, threats, and doxing, but we should allow differences of opinions and even angry rants when they are not threatening to a person or group of people.

But I’m struggling with the lack of good faith that I’m seeing. In our country, I see a lot of protests and anger towards our Prime Minister. I believe people should be allowed to protest and share their concerns, but when I see articles like, ‘Attack on Trudeau unsurprising, experts say, warning of future violence against politicians‘ stating that he was “pelted with gravel while at a campaign stop in London, Ont.” Or I read that he was heckled so loudly that he couldn’t continue a speech… Then that is going way too far. This isn’t protest, it’s fascist, it is intolerant and oppressive.

There is a difference between voicing concerns and harassment. There is a difference between protesting and threatening, there is a difference between peaceful, civil behavior and what seems to be happening today.

If I was to describe my politics, I’m definitely left of center. And while I fundamentally disagree with many things Ben Shapiro thinks and says, I get upset when I read articles that he can’t even speak at a university because of safety concerns… And that was 6 years ago! Things are even worse now. Much worse.

When I recently read, “The presidents of three of the nation’s top universities are facing intense backlash, including from the White House, after being accused of evading questions during a congressional hearing about whether calls by students for the genocide of Jews would constitute harassment under the schools’ codes of conduct.” I am deeply concerned. Should students be allowed to protest? Absolutely! Should they be allowed to promote genocide of any person or people as part of their protest? Absolutely not.

It’s an easy line to draw. Absolutely not. That’s acting in bad faith. That’s undermining our democracy and our freedoms.

We need to differentiate how we handle protests and free speech by people who are acting in good faith from those acting in bad faith. The very rights and freedoms we are given in a free and democratic society depend on us doing so. When we give those freedoms to people that abuse them, we subvert our own liberty. We diminish our freedoms and allow others, with harmful words and actions, to impose less civil values on us.

When free speech is misused, it harms us all. When violence is advocated or permitted; when protests prevent civil conversation and debate; when harassment is permitted; we all suffer. We can’t let people acting in bad faith weaken our civil liberties. We can’t just expect people to act in good faith, the minority who don’t will be too disruptive. We need to squash the bad faith actors. The trick is that we need to do so with legal actions. We need to have zero tolerance for intolerance, and we need to create laws that clearly restrict and penalize threats, hate crimes, and malice.

This is known as the paradox of tolerance, “The paradox of tolerance states that if a society’s practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper described it as the seemingly self-contradictory idea that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.”

Instead, what I am seeing is things like this happening:

People who have caused over a decade of harm to others do not deserve a social media platform. That’s not censorship, that’s prevention of further malice, pain, and suffering to innocent people. As I contemplate leaving Twitter, news like this makes me lean towards shutting down my account. But I don’t pretend that will have any meaningful impact beyond my own peace of mind.

The acceptance of bad faith actors has been building over the past decade, and we are deep into the consequences now. Free speech should only be a right for people who act in good faith. There can be disagreement, there can be discourse, there can even be civil arguments and protests. What there can’t be are bad faith actors and activists using free speech as a mechanism to promote harmful ideas, hate, violence, and disruptions to public discourse. For this we need zero tolerance.

Related: Ideas on a Spectrum

New learning paradigm

I heard something in a meeting recently that I haven’t heard in a while. It was in a meeting with some online educational leaders across the province and the topic of Chat GPT and AI came up. It’s really challenging in an online course, with limited opportunities for supervised work or tests, to know if a student is doing the work, or a parent or tutor, or Artificial Intelligence tools. That’s when a conversation came up that I’ve heard before. It was a bit of a stand on a soapbox diatribe, “If an assignment can be done by Chat GPT, then maybe the problem is in the assignment.”

That’s almost the exact line we started to hear about 15 years ago about Google… I might even have said it, “If you can just Google the answer to the question, then how good is the question?” Back then, this prompted some good discussions about assessment and what we valued in learning. But this is far more relevant to Google than it is to AI.

I can easily create a question that would be hard to Google. It is significantly harder to do the same with LLM’s – Large Language Models like Chat GPT. If I do a Google search I can’t find critical thinking challenges not already shared by someone else. However, I can ask Chat GPT to create answers to almost anything. Furthermore, I can ask it to create things like pro’s & con’s lists, then put those in point form, then do a rough draft of an essay, then improve on the essay. I can even ask it to use the vocabulary of a Grade 9 student. I can also give it a writing sample and ask it to write the essay in the same style.

LLM’s are not just a better Google, they are a paradigm shift. If we are trying to have conversations about how to catch cheaters, students using Chat GPT to do their work, we are stuck in the old paradigm. That said, I openly admit this is a much bigger problem in online learning where we don’t see and work closely with students in front of us. And we are heading into an era where there will be no way to verify what’s student work and what’s not, so it’s time to recognize the paradigm shift and start asking ourselves new questions…

The biggest questions we need to ask ourselves are how can we teach students to effectively use AI to help them learn, and what assignments can we create that ask them to use AI effectively to help them develop and share ideas and new learning?

Back when some teachers were saying, “Wikipedia is not a valid website to use as research and to cite.” Many more progressive educators were saying, “Wikipedia is a great place to start your research,” and, “Make sure you include the date you quoted the Wikipedia page because the page changes over time.” The new paradigm will see some teachers making students write essays in class on paper or on wifi-less internet-less computers, and other teachers will be sending students to Chat GPT and helping them understand how to write better prompts.

That’s the difference between old and new paradigm thinking and learning. The transition is going to be messy. Mistakes are going to be made, both by students and teachers. Where I’m excited is in thinking about how learning experiences are going to change. The thing about a paradigm shift is that it’s not just a slow transition but a leap into new territory. The learning experiences of the future will not be the same, and we can either try to hold on to the past, or we can get excited about the possibilities of the future.

AI and humans together

On Threads, Hank Green said, “AI isn’t scary because of what it’s going to do to humans, it’s scary because of what it’s going to allow humans to do to humans.”

I recently shared in, High versus low trust societies, examples of this with: more sophisticated scams; sensationalized click bait news titles and articles; and clever sales pitches, all ‘enhanced’ and improved by Artificial Intelligence. None of these are things AI is doing to us. All of them are ways AI can be used by people to take advantage of other people.

I quoted Hank’s Thread and said, “It’s just a tool, but so are guns, and look at how well we (miss)manage those!”

Overall I’m excited about how we will use AI to improve what we can do. There are already fields of medicine where AI can do thousands of hours of work in just a few hours. For example, drug discovery, “A multi-institutional team led by Harvard Medical School researchers has launched a platform that aims to optimize AI-driven drug discovery by developing more realistic data sets and higher-fidelity algorithms.”

The true power and potential of AI isn’t what AI can do on its own, it’s what humans and AI can do together.

But I also worry about people using amazing AI tools as weapons. For example, creating viruses or even dirty bombs. These are things that are out of reach for most people now, but AI might make such weapons both more affordable and more available… to anyone and everyone.

All this to say that Hank Green is right. “AI isn’t scary because of what it’s going to do to humans, it’s scary because of what it’s going to allow humans to do to humans.”

We are our own worst enemy.

The true danger and threat of AI isn’t what AI can do on its own, it’s what humans and AI can do together.

High versus low trust societies

I love when someone adds to my perspective on social media. That’s exactly what happened after I posted Basic assumptions a couple days ago. The post reflected that, “people no longer give each other the benefit of the doubt that intentions are good. This used to be a basic assumption we operated on, the premise that we can start with the belief that everyone is acting in good faith.”

I shared the post on Twitter and Chris Kalaboukis and I had the following conversation thread:

Chris: Reading your post: could we be transitioning from a high-trust to a low-trust society?

Dave: Yes, that seems like an appropriate conclusion. Is there an author that speaks of this idea?

Chris: Not that I can recall, however, if you look at the attributes of low-trust societies you see a lot of what is happening now.

Dave: So true! The circle of high trust seems to be shrinking and it really seems like a step backwards… tribalism trumps the collective of a greater community.

Chris: It is. It seems that even our institutions are driving us towards more tribalism and division.

Dave: And how do you suppose we correct this course? I honestly don’t have a clue, and see things getting worse before they get better.

Chris: I think that in reality, most people prefer to live in a high-trust society. We need leaders and media who support that vision.

Dave: I think the biggest problem right now is that most leaders do not want to step into a limelight where both social media and news outlets are only interested in focussing on the dirt. It seems everyone is measured by their worst transgressions, regardless of many positive deeds.

Chris: If it bleeds it leads. we’ve never been able to communicate with more people at the same time but the only communication which seems to get through is negative. It’s all about keeping your attention to sell more ads.

Dave: I sound like quite the pessimist, that’s not usually my stance on things, but I do struggle to see a way forward from here.

—–

The idea Chris shared that we could be ‘transitioning from a high-trust to a low-trust society’ seems insightful and really intrigues me. It isn’t happening at just one level, but many!

• Scam phone calls and emails are perfect examples. We used to operate from a position of trust, but now unknown calls and unsolicited emails are all necessarily met with skepticism.

• Sensationalized news leads with misleading headlines that are more about getting attention and clicks than about providing truthful news. And if the news slant doesn’t match your beliefs, it’s ‘fake news’.

• Sales pitches and advertising promises almost everything under the sun, you aren’t buying a product with a basic function, you are buying a product that is going to change your life or transform how you do ‘X’, or use ‘Y’… your results will surprise you and you’ll be amazed!

• If you are even slightly left wing you are ‘woke’ or ‘Antifa’ in the most derogatory way you can use these words. If you are even slightly right wing you are ‘Alt-right’ and racist. No one gets to sit on a spectrum, you are either viewed as an extreme on one or the other side. And even agreeing on one topic on the other side makes you less trustworthy on your side.

These are but a few ways we’ve become a lower-trust society. Ad hominem and straw man attacks get more attention than sound arguments. A well said lie is easily shared while complex truths are not. Saying a situation is complex and sharing nuance does not make for catchy sound bites, and aren’t going to go viral on TikTok, or Instagram Reels. No, but the snarky personal attack will, as will a one-sided, extreme view that packs a powerful punch.

What’s worse is that moderate voices get shut out. And in general many people feel silenced or would rather not share a view that is even slightly controversial. So the extreme voices get even more airtime and attention.

I feel this often. Writing every day, and sometimes picking controversial topics to discuss, I find myself tiptoeing and treading very carefully. I said in my Twitter conversation with Chris above, “It seems everyone is measured by their worst transgressions, regardless of many positive deeds.” I sometimes wonder what one thing I’m going to say is going to get blown out of proportion? If I write one single inappropriate or strongly biased phrase, will it define me? Will it undermine the 1,500+ posts that I’ve written, and make me out to be something or someone I’m not?

This sounds paranoid, but I wrote one post a few years ago that a friend private messaged me about, then called me and said I’d gone too far with my opinion on a specific point. I totally saw his point, went back and adjusted my post to tone it down… but I feel like that one issue, that one strong and overly biased opinion shared publicly put a rift in our friendship. And that’s someone I respect, not some stranger coming at me, not someone that doesn’t know my true character. My opinion in his eyes is now less trustworthy, and holds less value. That said, I appreciated the feedback, and respect that he took the time to share it privately. That’s rare these days.

The path forward is not easy. We aren’t just swaying slightly towards a less trustworthy society, we are on a full pendulum swing away from a more trustworthy society. Tribalism, nationalism, and extremism are pulling our world apart. Who do you trust? What institutions? Which governments? Who do you consider a neighbour? Who will you break bread with? Who do you believe?

The circles of trust are getting smaller, and the mechanisms to share bias and misinformation are growing. We are devolving into a less trusting society or rather societies, and it’s undermining our sense of community. We need messages of kindness, love, and peace to prevail. We need tolerance, acceptance, and more than anything trustworthy institutions and leaders. We need moderates and centrists to voice compromise and minimize extremist views. We need to rebuild a high trust society… together.

AI is Coming… to a school near you.

Miguel Guhlin asked on LinkedIn:

“Someone asked these questions in response to a blog entry, and I was wondering, what would YOUR response be?

1. What role/how much should students be using AI, and does this vary based on grade level?

2. What do you think the next five years in education will look like in regards to AI? Complete integration or total ban of AI?”

I commented:

1. Like a pencil or a laptop, AI is a tool to use sometimes and not use other times. The question is about expectations and management.

2. Anywhere that enforces a total ban on AI is going to be playing a never-ending and losing game of catch-up. That said, I have no idea what total integration will look like? Smart teachers are already using AI to develop and improve their lessons, those teachers will know that students can, and both will and should, use these tools as well. But like in question 1… when it’s appropriate. Just because a laptop might be ‘completely integrated’ into a classroom as a tool students use doesn’t mean everything they do in a classroom is with and on a laptop.

—

I’ve already dealt with some sticky issues around the use of AI in a classroom and online. One situation last school year was particularly messy, with a teacher using Chat GPT as an AI detector, rather than other AI detection tools. It turns out that Chat GPT is not a good AI detector. It might be better now, but I can confirm that in early 2023 it was very bad at this. I even put some of my own work into it and I had Chat GPT tell me that a couple paragraphs were written by it, even though I wrote the piece about 12 years earlier.

But what do we do in the meantime? Especially in my online school where very little, if any, work is supervised? Do we give up on policing altogether and just let AI do the assignments as we try to AI proof them? Do we give students grades for work that isn’t all theirs? How is that fair?

This is something we will figure out. AI, like laptops, will be integrated into education. Back in 2009 I presented on the topic, “The POD’s are Coming!”

(Slideshow here) About Personally Owned Devices… laptop etc… coming into our classrooms, and the fear of these devices. We are at that same point with AI now. We’ll get through this and our classrooms will adapt (again).

And in a wonderful full-circle coincidence, one of the images I used in the POD’s post above was a posterized quote by Miguel Guilin.

It’s time to take the leap. AI might be new… but we’ve been here before.

Asimov’s Robot Visions

I’m listening to Isaac Asimov’s book, Robot Visions on Audible. Short stories that center around his Three Laws of Robotics (Asimov’s 3 Laws).

• The First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

• The Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

• The Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

These short stories all focus on ways that these laws can go wrong, or perhaps awry is the better term. There are a few things that make these stories insightful but they are also very dated. The early ones were written in the 1940’s and the conventions of the time, including conversational language and sexist undertones, are blatantly exposed as ‘olde’.

It also seems that Asimov made 2 assumptions worth thinking about: First that all robots and Artificial Intelligence would be constructed with the 3 laws at the core of all intelligence built into these machines. Many, many science fiction stories that followed also use these laws. However creators of Large Language Models like Chat GPT are struggling to figure out what guard rails to put on their AI to prevent it from acting maliciously when meeting sometimes scrupulous human requests.

Secondly, a few of the stories include a Robopsychologist, that’s right, a person (always female) who is an expert in the psychology of robots. There would be psychologists whose sole purpose would be to get inside the minds of robots.

Asimov was openly concerned with AI, specifically robots, acting badly, endangering humans, and even following our instructors too literally and with undesirable consequences. But he thought his 3 laws was a good start. Perhaps they are but they are just a start. And with new AI’s coming out with more computing power, more training, and less restrictions, I think Asimov’s concerns may prove prophetic.

The guard rails are off and there is no telling what unexpected consequences and results we will see in the coming months and years.