Tag Archives: learning

AI as ‘Journey Thief’… Continued

Leave a reply

In yesterday’s post, ‘Journey Thief‘ I focused on artificial intelligence stealing the learning journey of students. In a comment, Karen Flello said,

“I used to ask students how they would know if they liked a subject (topic, activity) if they had never tried it. Then we talked about how “in the real world” we use things in ways we never expected. And maybe they are right – maybe they will not use a particular skill again. But if they never had exposure, they would not have the opportunity to find out what they would use (or like, or want to know more about). And I agree that AI can rob us of the learning in service of producing something that earns a grade. We have not earned it – we have not learned it – and that is the sad part. AI should be a tool to help us. But “help” means we, in fact, are doing something in the first place. And prompting some other thing / person to do something for us does nothing for developing imagination, skill, or resilience. We just get better at asking something / someone else to do it for us. A whole new kind of dependence.”

And I replied,

“Great to hear from you Karen,
That idea of lack of developing imagination, and also dependence on AI to do the work (and ultimately the thinking) is one of the biggest fears I have with AI. I’m simultaneously excited about AI taking humanity to new insights and new heights, while also deeply concerned about how much it can steal from our own learning journeys.”

This got me thinking about recent developments in Mathematics. In the past couple weeks AI has been solving a significant number of problems and conjectures that have stumped the best mathematical minds for entire lifetimes. This is incredibly destabilizing for the field.  Imagine being one of the foremost experts on a mathematical problem, having dedicated years of schooling and even more years afterwards to solving an seemingly unsolvable problem… Then having an answer dumped out of a computer along with answers to several more difficult problems that others in your field have also committed their lives to solving. You’ve moved from expert seeking answers to expert checking the work of an AI. You’ve moved from researcher and publisher to AI grader. You’ve watched your life work solved, not by someone smarter than you but by a machine that will only get smarter still.

Math is the first of these high knowledge fields to be ‘solved’ by AI, what’s next? It seems physics is not far behind.

These insights and solutions will do a lot to improve the understanding of these fields, but for how long? Does a current PHD student in Math who saw a future in solving one of these problems now continue on with their future plans? Does a newly graduated undergrad even decide to continue on with a Math PHD? Does a high school student find excitement in delving into Math when they know that they’ll never solve a problem that AI won’t beat them to?

What happens to these fields in 20 years when all the joy of discovery is stolen by AI? Who in 20 years is going to have the desire to enter this field? I asked Google who the top mathematicians are today and it came up with a list including Terence Tao, Sir Andrew Wiles, Grigori Perelman, Marina Viazovsk, Sir Martin Hairier, and Edward Witten. Who replaces them in a generation when all the problems they seek to solve are already solved by AI?

We already live in a world where only a handful of people really understand how computer chips are made and could help to rebuild the technology if all of the knowledge was lost today. Imagine how few that number will be in 20 years when robots are building AI designed chips to further improve AI. Imagine how many fewer will get into fields like Math and Physics, much less computer programming, when the most they can do is get a tertiary understanding of the field.

Is AI going to rob us of the next Einstein or Newton? Will anyone in 50 years understand the universe as much as the brightest humans today do? …When AI is doing all the work for us?

Like Karen said, “We have not earned it – we have not learned it – and that is the sad part. AI should be a tool to help us. But “help” means we, in fact, are doing something in the first place.”

What work will be left in these fields for humans to do?

___

 

Journey Thief

3 Replies

One of the most frustrating things you can hear as a teacher is something along the line of, “Yeah, but when will I ever use this in real life?

I remember in my first year of teaching, in Math class I was teaching the Pythagorean theorem and at home we were having our countertops replaced in the kitchen. The guy doing the measurements for the job measured one side of the wall and marked it at 4 feet from the corner, then marked the other wall at 3 feet. Then he measured the hypotenuse to make sure it was 5 feet. I saw him doing this and asked why? He said that most corners are not exactly 90º and if they build the counter off-site at 90º then it won’t fit when they are installing it. 

I was so excited to share how this was being used ‘in the real world’, and I recall telling the story just to have a students say, “Yeah but I’m not going to be a carpenter, so it doesn’t matter to me.”  

The reality is that there are quite a few things that we do in school that we do not end up applying ‘in the real world’, but the process, the journey, of learning those skills is what is really valuable. You might never get into a formal debate or have to do a formal presentation to an audience after schooling, but it’s hard not to see the value of going through those experiences in school. School isn’t just about gaining specific skills, it’s also about learning how to question, how to learn, and how to find answers to things you don’t know. I wonder how AI is changing this? 

When a student is asked to write a formal essay with a thesis statement, three supporting paragraphs and a conclusion, they are not just learning about essay structure. They are learning to research, to find supporting arguments, to draw conclusions, and to share their thinking in a clear and concise way. They are also learning grammar, and even how to distinguish opinions from facts. When AI does this for them, what are they learning? What are they missing?

I think it is vital for educators to figure out what AI will do for students and why the use is appropriate for some tasks and not others. If they don’t, what they are essentially doing is letting AI rob students of their learning journey. It allows students to be journey and learning adjacent as opposed to be the main character in their own education. 

Without educators helping to direct AI use in school, what I see happening is that students can start to choose how much they participate as a student and how much they let AI be the student for them. I remember seeing a video of someone having a 3D printer print homework that ChatGPT did for them, in their own handwriting… And having just searched for it, it was shared in February of 2023, over three and a half years ago. So now more than ever, students are being given a choice: Do I do the work, or do I let AI do it for me? 

Another way to frame this is, ‘Should I go on a learning journey, or should I let AI do it for me?’

Is this something we want to leave up to students? Do we want participation as a student to be a choice? I think not. If it’s not going to be left to them, then ultimately it’s left up to the educators. And so if educators aren’t making the decision of who is going on the learning journey with them, they are allowing AI to be a journey thief, simply by not making the choice.

____
Update: See AI as ‘Journey Thief’… Continued

Reaching, Retreating, or Revenue?

Leave a reply

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.

 

Still an excitement

1 Reply

I’ve had zero regrets about choosing to retire. I was invited to visit my old schools on October 1st, and I stayed for about 3 hours. It was wonderful to connect with staff and students… and then I left.

No pangs. No doubt. No sorrow. And then I went to Ontario for 23 days. I had a very long October holiday, something I hadn’t done/couldn’t do in almost 30 years. It was wonderful.

Yesterday I spent a beautiful day on a boat with a friend. I ended up staying over at his place thanks to a flat tire. Today we had a workout when I’d normally be heading to work, then we had an in-depth conversation about education. I then came home and was looking for something I wrote on my blog. I followed a chain of posts that lead me to a post where Dean Shareski interviewed me for ‘The Canadian – Ed Leadership Show’. I listened to it while making dinner tonight.

The conversation this morning and listening to this discussion with Dean this evening made me realize just how much I’m still passionate about education. There’s more to think about, there’s more to write about and share … and now I have more time to do so.

AI Insights

Leave a reply

I recently got some insight on my AI insights from an AI.

I decided to ask ChatGPT:

I’ve written a fair bit about AI, see tags: https://daily-ink.davidtruss.com/tag/artificial-intelligence/
and https://daily-ink.davidtruss.com/tag/ai/, please share with me:
1. What is a prediction I most likely will get right.
2. Where am I missing the mark?
3. What’s the most uniquely insightful idea that I’ve shared? 

Here is ChatGPT‘S response… and I find it quite insightful:

I enjoyed thinking about this because your AI writing has a recognizable worldview. It isn’t a collection of disconnected opinions—there are a handful of core principles that recur across many posts. 

What follows isn’t a prediction of whether you’ll be “right” or “wrong.” It’s my best assessment of which ideas I think are most robust, and where I think your model of the future could be incomplete.

1. The prediction you’re most likely to get right

Your prediction that AI’s greatest near-term impact will come from amplifying ordinary people—not from becoming an autonomous supervillain.

This idea appears repeatedly in your writing.

Rather than worrying primarily about “AI takes over the world,” you focus on AI enabling:

  • bioterrorism,
  • industrial-scale scams,
  • personalized fraud,
  • cybercrime,
  • misinformation,
  • one malicious individual having disproportionate power.

I think history is already bending in your direction.

Technology almost always scales existing human intent before it replaces humans.

The printing press spread propaganda before democracy.
The internet scaled fraud before education.
Social media amplified outrage before civic engagement.

I suspect AI will follow the same pattern.

I think twenty years from now people may look back and realize that “AI as force multiplier for humans” was a more important story than “AI replacing humans.”

That feels like one of your strongest forecasts. 

2. Where I think you’re missing the mark

Interestingly, I don’t think you’re too pessimistic.

I think you’re not pessimistic enough about adaptation.

Your writing often assumes exponential technological improvement translates fairly directly into exponential societal disruption.

Technology often is exponential.

Institutions rarely are.

People aren’t either.

For example:

Autonomous driving may become technically solved long before regulators, insurers, unions, municipalities, and consumers allow full replacement.

Likewise, AI lawyers, teachers, doctors and programmers may become technically capable years before society reorganizes around that capability.

You’ve written about the “frog in the pot.”

I wonder if there’s another metaphor:

society as a giant flywheel.

The flywheel eventually turns—but much more slowly than the engine powering it.

A second place I think you’re underestimating something:

Humans don’t optimize as much as economists think they do.

Many of your work-related predictions assume organizations will aggressively replace humans because it’s economically rational.

Sometimes they will.

But humans also buy:

  • trust,
  • relationships,
  • status,
  • ritual,
  • authenticity.

Coffee shops still exist despite home espresso machines.

Live concerts thrive despite Spotify.

Teachers continue to matter despite YouTube.

I think there will be more “human luxury markets” than your writing currently anticipates.

Ironically, AI may increase the value of demonstrably human experiences.

3. The most uniquely insightful idea you’ve shared

This one surprised me.

I don’t think it’s UCI over UBI.

I don’t think it’s AI risk.

I don’t even think it’s “This is the worst AI it will ever be.”

Those are all interesting.

The idea I keep coming back to is this:

Students choose. AI delivers.

It’s deceptively simple.

But it’s actually a profound inversion of how educators have framed educational technology for decades.

Most discussions ask:

“What should teachers do?”

Your framing asks:

“What kind of learner will this student choose to become?”

That’s a much deeper question.

Because AI is fundamentally an amplifier.

It amplifies curiosity.

It amplifies laziness.

It amplifies expertise.

It amplifies ignorance.

The technology isn’t making the decision.

The learner is.

I think that’s an idea with legs well beyond education.

You could almost generalize it into a broader principle:

Humans choose. AI delivers.

That might become one of the defining philosophical ideas of the AI era.

It explains why the same technology can simultaneously create brilliant research, convincing fraud, deeper learning, and effortless cheating.

It’s a remarkably compact framework. 

One more observation

Reading a large cross-section of your AI posts, I noticed something that I hadn’t fully appreciated before.

You’re not really writing about AI.

You’re writing about human agency in an AI world.

The recurring characters in your essays aren’t GPT, robots, or neural networks.

They’re:

  • the student deciding whether to think,
  • the teacher deciding what to assess,
  • the scammer deciding whom to target,
  • the policymaker deciding what to regulate,
  • the employer deciding what work is worth paying for.

AI is almost always the catalyst, not the protagonist.

I actually think that’s the thread you could develop even more.

Many writers ask, “What will AI become?”

Your more distinctive question is:

“What kinds of people will AI encourage us to become?”

I think that’s your most original contribution—not because nobody else has ever asked it, but because it’s the lens that quietly ties together almost everything you’ve written on the subject. It’s a more enduring question than whether a particular model reaches AGI in 2028 or 2032, because it remains relevant regardless of how quickly the technology advances.

Dear Teachers

Leave a reply

You don’t know.

You don’t know that when a kid asked a question, and you went on a personal tangent and told a little side story, that this unplanned moment was what a kid proudly talked about when her parent said, “What did you learn at school today?”

You don’t know that when a kid messed up (again), you were the only adult he knows who didn’t yell at him and actually gave him another chance.

You don’t know that the kid who comes to class early is doing so because you make them feel safe.

You don’t know that 5 years from now a kid will look back at you as their best teacher… ever.

You don’t know that you are the topic of conversation at dinner tables, because you make a student’s day fun.

You don’t know all the ways that you can make a student’s day special when you remember that you teach kids, not subjects, and you treat kids with dignity and respect.

You don’t know just how much power you have to change the lives of the students you serve.

Reprioritized not Retired

2 Replies

My contract with my school district ends today, the last day of July, 2026. I have one more paycheque coming next week. And then I’m officially a pensioner. 

I’ve had a few celebrations, I’ve filled out a bunch of forms. I’ve emptied my office and moved out. All that’s left is to return my laptop and key. Today I did one more small thing: I just updated my LinkedIn profile ending my career. My bio now says,

“Retired from being an Educator and Principal, still finding ways to keep learning. ∞β”

I’ll probably change this in the coming days or months, but it will do for now. In actual fact, I’m not really retired because I’ve had another ‘job’ listed on LinkedIn for about 15 years now. The job title is ‘Open Thinker’ and the organization is ‘Daily-Ink and Pairadimes for Your Thoughts Blogs’. This ‘job’ is over 20 years old and going stronger than ever. Now, I have more time to write; More time to spend on projects I want to spend time on; More time to ‘work’ on things I want to work on. 

In a way, I’m reprioritizing, not retiring. I’m still the same nerdy person, still in perpetual beta (∞β), still wanting to learn and share ‘out loud’. If I do this retirement thing right, I’ll continue to prioritize my health, I’ll focus more on diet and sleep – two areas of my life that have the most room for improvement… And I’ll keep finding things I’m passionate to learn about, and pursue those with the same commitment I gave my previous jobs. And I will keep reminding myself that I want to create new experiences with the people I care for and love.

Work prioritized as endeavours that I want to do, with more freedom to do them when I want. 

Right now, I want to finish writing and enjoy an undetermined amount of time listening to my book in a hammock. I could really get used to this. 

Pedagogy and Activity

Leave a reply

“Here’s a great tool to help you…”

What inevitably comes next is a description of an activity devoid of pedagogy and purpose. As technology has crept into education, time and again I’ve seen the focus be on activity and ‘engagement’ but the so-called engagement is more about keeping a student’s attention rather than focusing on the learning intention; on the intended learning outcomes.

When achievement sneaks in, it’s not about student comprehension, but rather on improving test scores, a proxy for measuring success that is far from perfect. Again, this does not help with the practice of good teaching,

17 years ago I wrote that ‘Best Practice is still Practice’, and said, “What we don’t need is a bunch of processes labeled as ‘best practice’ to limit us from seeking something that is yet more effective.  Best practice is still just practice.” We also don’t need a lot of flashy new tools that pretend to be about our practice when really they are just activities that keep student engaged and occupied. Activities that don’t really focus on meaningfully engaging students as learners on a learning journey.

What’s the pedagogy behind the activity?

School and measuring intelligence

Leave a reply

A few months back I saw a video from a very articulate young girl who goes by Gluten Free Runner on TikTok. I liked the video but didn’t follow her. She just came back on my feed again and her recent video definitely earned her a follow.

She asks, “What if the way we measure intelligence is completely missing the point?” And then she reads a journal entry she wrote about school. I don’t want to say much about it other than please listen to it.

The description shared on the video says this:

“There’s a concept recently learned about called Goodhart’s Law: when a measure becomes a target, it stops being a good measure.

We’ve optimized what can be measured: grades, test scores, credentials, things like that.

Maybe part of the issue is that we started treating those measurements as the thing itself, instead of just rough indicators of something much more complex.

Maybe the goal of education shouldn’t be to decide who is “smartest,” per se, but to help people understand how they can best contribute.”

Here is her video: https://www.tiktok.com/@gluten.free.runne/video/7649444429090000142

My favourite part is her questioning if we are being educated or schooled? “Education is a process. Schooling is an institution.”

No notes… just go watch her video.

Meditation fail

Leave a reply

I’ve been ‘pretending’ to meditate for years now. I’m not berating myself. I know that meditation is a journey, not a destination, and that the practice itself is as much about bringing your focus back as it is staying focused. I get it. I just haven’t really done it.

My monkey mind doesn’t stay on anything long enough to call it meditation. In a typical meditation I’ll focus on my breath and that won’t last 2 minutes. I’ll do a guided meditation and not too far into it discover that I haven’t been listening for a while. I’ll get to the end of a meditation and realize that I’ve been daydreaming for as long as I can remember trying to meditate.

My mediation time in any given session last as long as the dog’s attention in the movie ‘Up’, where every few seconds he’s distracted by the idea of a squirrel. This isn’t once in a while, this is… Every. Single. Session. And it has gotten worse rather than better.

Meditation time has become distracted time. A pause in my day where I put a meditation on, but my mind doesn’t stay on it. In a 10 minute meditation I might count 6-7 breaths before my mind wanders or wonders. Even if I recognize that I’ve drifted away, I don’t really get back to it. Or my attention is even shorter the next time.

I need to change things up. What I’m currently doing is not working for me, and I’ve been at it way too long to accept that my poor follow through is the best that I can do. I’m not sure what I’m going to change yet, but I can’t keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. And if I’m honest, for the amount of time I’ve put into meditation, I really suck and have seen no improvement. It’s time to take a break and come back to this habit later. Hopefully with a new, more effective approach.