Tag Archives: technology

AI doom rabbit hole

Leave a reply

As someone who had a father who saw the impending doom of civilization around every corner… and who was simultaneously brilliant and would still follow conspiracy theory after conspiracy… I have a hesitation around sounding alarms of doom. But I went down a rabbit hole of alarming videos yesterday that I can’t get out of my head.

There is a story that was exaggerated in the movie Oppenheimer, where they talk about the probability of the bomb igniting the atmosphere. The odds were ‘near zero’ and it was gallows humour, not a genuine concern.

But the rabbit hole I went down was of video clips of experts in the AI field putting the probability of human extinction at ranges from 5% to above 33%… and not in the next 20 to 50 years but rather in the next 2 to 5 years. To state the obvious, these odds are NOT ‘near zero’. I’m not even going to share any of the videos I found, you can find them yourself. Pick an AI leader or anyone who is an expert in AI governance or AI safety… Pick anyone whose opinion you value in those areas and research what they think about this, and you’ll easily find very concerning clips of them stating rather scary odds. These are not conspiracy junkies, they aren’t fear-mongering social media attention seekers, these are the foremost experts in their field sharing this.

I asked Chat GPT about the actual Fermi/Oppenheimer odds on the possibility of destroying the earth, and got this back:

“The odds discussed by the Manhattan Project scientists

  • J. Robert Oppenheimer: In the film, he tells General Leslie Groves that the chances of atmospheric ignition were “near zero.” However, this is a dramatized conversation, not a documented numerical estimate by Oppenheimer.

  • Enrico Fermi: Famously joked about betting on whether the Trinity test would ignite the atmosphere. One historical account gives his estimate as 1 in 1,000 (0.1%). He wasn’t seriously predicting catastrophe; it was gallows humour.

  • Hans Bethe and Emil Konopinski: They investigated the physics and concluded that a self-sustaining nuclear reaction in the atmosphere was effectively impossible.”

     

Then I asked, “Are we rolling the dice with AI super intelligence?” The following response does not quell my concerns. I’m going to share the last sentence first, “Perhaps the most important question facing our generation is whether we can develop the wisdom to govern a technology before we develop the power to lose control of it.” ~ All I see is a flat out race to get to super intelligence first, with no real thought of global governance. Even if global governance was a thing, there is absolutely no way to enforce it meaningfully. 

The deeper I went down the rabbit hole, the gloomier my outlook became. I’m left thinking about this clip from comedian Jimmy Carr which, while humorous, is literally telling us that we are headed towards humiliation by a all-knowing entity that ‘lives in the cloud’.

So I’ll leave you with this. What did Chat GPT say when I asked, “Are we rolling the dice with AI super intelligence?”

“Yes. In some important ways, we are. And I think the comparison with the Manhattan Project is one of the most useful ways to think about the risks of artificial superintelligence.

The uncomfortable parallel is this: in both cases, humanity developed a technology whose potential consequences exceeded our historical experience, while the people building it couldn’t confidently predict every outcome.

But there is an important difference. With nuclear weapons, the catastrophic scenario was a specific physical process: an uncontrolled chain reaction in the atmosphere. With superintelligent AI, the concern is much broader: creating something that could become more capable than humans at planning, persuading, scientific discovery, cyber operations, and eventually controlling critical systems.

Are we actually taking a risk?

Yes. There are several reasons to take the possibility of catastrophic AI seriously:

  1. We don’t fully understand what we’re building. Even the people developing advanced AI systems cannot completely explain or predict all their capabilities and behaviours.

  2. Capabilities may outpace safeguards. A system could become exceptionally good at pursuing objectives without reliably respecting the intentions or constraints of its creators.

  3. Competition encourages risk-taking. Companies and countries have incentives to develop increasingly powerful systems before their competitors do.

  4. Control becomes harder as capability increases. If an AI system can strategize, replicate tasks, manipulate people, or exploit computer systems better than its overseers, traditional safeguards may prove inadequate.

What odds do experts put on catastrophe?

One particularly revealing study was published in 2024.

Researchers surveyed 2,778 AI researchers who had published in leading AI conferences.

5%

Median estimate of human extinction or similarly permanent, catastrophic disempowerment from future AI.

16%

Mean estimate across respondents.

AI Impacts survey, based on researchers’ forecasts. These are subjective estimates, not measured probabilities.

In other words, the median researcher gave AI catastrophe odds of approximately 1 in 20.

That’s not a trivial risk.

The 2026 International AI Safety Report, led by Yoshua Bengio and informed by more than 100 experts, reinforces the concern. It finds that current AI systems do not yet have the capabilities required for loss of control, but that early warning signs exist. It also concludes that existing risk-management methods have significant limitations.

The most frightening parallel with the atomic bomb

I think there are three similarities:

  1. The race: Scientists and governments feel compelled to get there first.

  2. The uncertainty: Nobody can confidently predict what happens when the technology crosses a certain capability threshold.

  3. The irreversibility: Once a sufficiently powerful technology is released, it may be impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

But there’s one crucial difference.

The atomic bomb required an enormous industrial infrastructure and was controlled by relatively few governments.

Advanced AI could potentially be copied, distributed, improved and deployed at extraordinary speed. Control could become much more complicated.

My view

I don’t think AI extinction is inevitable. Nor do I think we should assume that superintelligence will automatically become hostile.

But I believe there is a serious problem with the incentives driving development.

The benefits of building increasingly powerful AI are concentrated among companies and countries. The potential catastrophic costs could be shared by everyone on Earth.

That is a dangerous mismatch.

My central concern isn’t that AI will suddenly become evil. It’s that humanity might build something more intelligent than itself without first figuring out how to reliably keep it aligned with human interests.

And that brings me back to Oppenheimer.

After Trinity, he reportedly recalled the Bhagavad Gita:

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”

Perhaps the most important question facing our generation is whether we can develop the wisdom to govern a technology before we develop the power to lose control of it.”

 

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

AI comedy or calamity?

Leave a reply

A video and a screenshot that both gave me a chuckle today:

First, this video on Instagram.

A comedian shared that AI asks if it can ‘professionalize’ a curt email he sends to his staff. It creates an 18 page email. All of his staff don’t want to read 2 pages so they click ‘Summarize’ and the AI summarizes to his original curt email. 😆

Next, and this one is not just comedy but something that actually happened. AI gives email summaries for unread emails and this person gets a pretty harsh summary before opening the email: ‘Relationship ends;’ – yikes!

We are all in a new relationship, a relationship with Artificial Intelligence… but not fully intelligent, or compassionate, or helpful… yet. It’s coming, but in the meantime, there are going to be some messy situations. These are humorous but the latter one is quite insensitive. That said, so is ending a relationship via email. So, while AI has a lot still to learn, so do some people too.

Still relevant six years later

Leave a reply

I wrote and shared this poem on October 30th, 2020:

A Life Consumed

Overstimulated, over stressed,
Anxiety heightened but not addressed.

Faces lit in a constant glow,
From a device, in hands, below.

Palms cup, thumbs type,
Or click, or ‘Like’, or swipe.

Acceptance measured by affirmation,
But never enough for self-appreciation.

Pressure builds to levels previously unknown,
From always being connected, yet always feeling alone.

~

I’m not sure things have gotten better? I see screens babysitting kids in grocery stores and restaurants. Students struggle to disconnect for the length of a single class. Video games have mastered the arts of keeping attention and feeding brains dopamine at just the right intervals.

No matter how we look at it, screens are time thieves, and we are all having time stolen from us. My concern is that there is a big difference between time and attention stolen from kids and time and attention stolen from adults.

How does AI impact this? I decided to ask AI (Microsoft’s Copilot)… “I wrote this poem six years ago, how has improvements in AI made the challenges and concerns I have in the poem better or worse?” It confirms why I thought it was relevant to share the poem again.

From Copilot:

This is a striking poem because it was written six years ago, yet many of its themes feel even more relevant today. What’s especially interesting is that AI has made some of the problems you identify both better and worse at the same time.

What AI has made worse

“Overstimulated, over stressed”

AI has dramatically increased the volume of content competing for attention. Algorithms can now generate endless feeds of videos, images, articles, and recommendations tailored to individual interests. The result is often more stimulation than ever before, making it harder to disconnect or focus deeply.

“Acceptance measured by affirmation”

Social validation has evolved beyond simple likes and follows. AI systems optimize engagement, often promoting content that generates stronger emotional reactions. This can intensify the feeling that personal worth is tied to metrics, visibility, and online performance.

“Always being connected, yet always feeling alone”

AI companions, chatbots, and synthetic social interactions can provide comfort, but they may also create an illusion of connection that doesn’t fully replace human relationships. In some cases, people spend more time interacting with systems designed to simulate attention rather than building reciprocal relationships.

The constant glow

Your poem focuses on phones, but AI has spread digital engagement into almost every platform. Devices are becoming more effective at capturing attention because they increasingly learn what keeps each person engaged.

What AI has made better

“Anxiety heightened but not addressed”

This may be where AI has helped the most. Six years ago, many people struggling with anxiety had limited access to support outside of friends, family, or professionals. Today, AI can help people:

  • Learn coping techniques.
  • Track moods and habits.
  • Access mental health resources.
  • Talk through worries at any hour.

It’s not a replacement for professional care, but it can make support more accessible.

Reducing loneliness for some people

While AI can contribute to isolation, it can also help people who feel socially disconnected. Individuals who are shy, isolated by geography, disabled, or struggling emotionally may find AI conversations helpful as a bridge toward greater confidence and connection.

Reducing pressure in work and school

Some of the “always connected” stress comes from overwhelming workloads. AI can automate routine tasks, draft communications, summarize information, and reduce cognitive burden. For some people, that creates more room for rest and meaningful activities.

The line that aged most accurately

“Pressure builds to levels previously unknown, From always being connected, yet always feeling alone.”

When you wrote this, “being connected” mostly meant social media, messaging, and smartphones. Today it also means being connected to recommendation systems, AI assistants, algorithmic feeds, and platforms that increasingly anticipate our needs before we express them.

The paradox has deepened: technology is better than ever at responding to us, yet many people still struggle to feel genuinely seen by one another.

My overall take is that your poem was fundamentally about human attention and human validation, not just smartphones. Because of that, it has aged surprisingly well. AI didn’t change the core concern. It amplified it. The technology became more sophisticated, but the question remains the same:

Can tools designed to capture our attention also help us preserve our humanity?

That question feels even more urgent in 2026 than it did when you wrote the poem.

Breaking the Fourth Wall (Vibe Coding)

1 Reply

There’s a moment in theatre when the actors stop pretending the audience isn’t there. They turn, they look, they speak through the invisible barrier that’s supposed to keep the story contained.

That barrier, the fourth wall, is an agreed upon fiction. A fragile membrane that says, “Let’s pretend this world is whole and sealed, and you’re only here to watch.”

But the instant it’s broken something electric happens. The audience is no longer observing… they’re participating. The story stops being a distant thing and becomes a conversation. A wink. A confession. A reminder that the boundary was imaginary all along.

I’ve always thought the fourth wall is less a wall and more a veil. Thin. Permeable. A curtain we agree not to touch… until someone does, and suddenly we’re aware of the invisible wall we were happily ignoring. It was never there other than by our agreement to put it there. Think of all the times you sat at a table with play actors or television stars… the table set on 3 sides so that we can be seated at the table with the other guests. 

It’s funny how much of life works this way. We build invisible structures around our routines, our roles, our expectations. We pretend they’re solid. Then something breaks the wall… retirement, travel, a conversation, a moment of honesty. And we realize the boundary was never real… Just agreed upon.

~~~

And then there’s AI and vibe coding.

Vibe coding breaks a different kind of fourth wall. Traditional coding puts a strict boundary between intent and implementation. Computer programmers take an idea someone has, translates it into a foreign language, then they run the program, test and tweak it, and put it out into the world. 

Vibe coding says: What if we eliminate the computer programmer? What if the boundary between human intention and machine execution is thin enough to poke through? What if we can talk to the system the way an actor talks to the audience… directly, without pretending the separation is there?

In theatre, breaking the fourth wall collapses the distance between story and spectator. In vibe coding, breaking the ‘programming wall’ collapses the distance between idea and implementation.

Both moments feel like cheating. Both feel like magic. Both reveal that the barriers we created are no longer needed. The fourth wall says, “You’re not supposed to be part of this.” Vibe coding says, “You can be.”

Theatre uses the break to deepen connection. Vibe coding uses it to accelerate creation. And in both cases, once you’ve experienced the break, it’s hard to go back to pretending the wall was ever real.

We are all really just actors on a world stage, now given the chance to break the fourth wall: the programming wall; the creativity wall.  We can choose to be an actor and participate in breaking this wall, or we can sit back like an audience member and watch others do it. 

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.

My first phone

Leave a reply

It’s hard to believe that I’ve never owned my own phone. I’ve been an administrator since the mid 2000’s, and the job came with a phone. Before that my wife and I shared a phone… Why would we have needed our own phones?

With the end of the month retirement deadline looming, and a holiday to the interior on our agenda, it was time for me to head to the store and buy a phone in my own name. It’s seems rather odd to be saying that for the first time in 2026. Just think of all the changes that have occurred since I shared a flip phone with my wife.

How different are our lives? How much more focused on our phones are we? How much more do we rely on them for information, banking, entertainment, direction, and of course, communication?

I couldn’t imagine sharing a phone today… I’m having a hard time remembering how I did it 20 years ago!?!

My last paper book?

Leave a reply

I took a break from reading (listening to) books for a while. I finished a fantasy fiction back in December and then got on a streak of only listening to podcasts. Usually I find a good non-fiction or two between school breaks, then go back to a good fiction on holidays. But this March break I didn’t end up listening to anything and the school year-end (career-end) was too busy to start anything new.

It’s weird, but I do not remember what year was the last time I read a physical book? It might even have been pre-Covid… I honestly don’t remember! In fact, I haven’t read a digital book either for just as long. I’ve read countless articles, but a paper book is just not something I do anymore. There are books I’ve received as presents, of which I’ve liked the recommendation, and so I’ve purchased the audiobook version. There are two books at my bedside that I want to read, they are in a sort of ‘up soon’ category for me… but not until the audio version is available.

As I write this it kind of baffles me how much I’ve converted to audio. I mean, I don’t know if I’ll ever read a physical book again? I’m sure I will at some point, but I am realizing now that the act of reading another physical book will be an anomaly rather than the norm. This bothers me a little, but not enough to change my habits.

I still love a good book, but it seems like I’m really done with paper.

Pay Attention – Grad Speech

1 Reply

I didn’t read it all word for word, and I ad libbed an ending to coincide with a couple references by student speeches and a video shared before I got up to speak… but here is my last grad speech, titled ‘Pay Attention’ as it was written.

___

Yesterday was Father’s Day… and yes, I’m keenly aware that starting my speech with that suggests I wrote this speech as last minute as many of our grads completed their assignments over the last 4 years… but I digress. 

Yesterday was Father’s Day and I was out for lunch with my family. Two tables next to us showed me a stark contrast in how families connect or disconnect. Both of these tables had someone my age at them. One of them, a woman, was alone with her elderly father, the other, a man, was with both of his senior parents. 

The woman was leaning forward and listening intently to her dad. Juxtaposed to this, the man had his phone in his left hand for the entire meal, and barely ever looked away from it. 

He scrolled, and typed, scrolled and typed, and even when his parents spoke to him, he didn’t look up when he responded. His parents had to wait for him to finish his meal to order dessert, but he didn’t speed up his eating, he focussed far more on his phone. Two tables, two totally different dynamics. 

We live in an era of distractions. When our attention is elsewhere, it’s not where it should be. 

And with that I’ll address our grads directly: Pay attention to what matters.

You’ve had a rich high school experience with teachers who didn’t just teach you the curriculum, they taught you how to think, how to formulate your ideas, and how to come to your own conclusions about the things that matter in this world.

Don’t pay attention to people who talk about their own truths. Don’t pay attention to AI slop designed to steal your time and attention. Don’t pay attention to extreme political views that are more interested in exciting anger than encouraging understanding. And don’t pay attention to those who profit from division, outrage, or fear.

Instead, pay attention to evidence. Pay attention to people who ask good questions. Pay attention to those who listen before they speak. Pay attention to the people in your life who challenge you to become wiser, kinder, and more courageous.

You’ve had a head start. You’ve been going to school in a community that fosters your individuality; a community that is accepting of different opinions, different perspectives, and let’s face it, different levels of quirkiness. All the while, allowing you to express your true self within a kind and accepting community. Take this with you wherever you go. Be the one who others appreciate, who others admire, and who understands when to speak up and to speak out. 

The reality is that no other school makes you present and voice your views and opinions with authentic discourse more than iHub. And so, you are uniquely skilled to filter the BS that comes your way, to see through insincerity, and to be the one who speaks up and speaks out when no one else will. 

However, it all starts with your attention. 

A few of our former grads came back to talk to you a couple months ago. One of them who is on a sports team training for 20 hours a week and working part time on top of a full-time university course load said that Inquiry Hub prepared her to use her time well, and she’s shocked at how students feel overwhelmed with just their course loads. Another student said her professor complimented her on how good her essay was and she replied, “Really, I think my high school Humanities teacher would have given this a high ‘B’.”

I bring this up because you are headed into new learning opportunities where you can choose to be like other students, or you can design your learning journey like you did here at iHub. And the experience you have can be one driven by your attention, or by distractions. 

Your attention is one of the most valuable things you possess. Where you choose to invest it will, in many ways, determine the person you become when you get to my or your parent’s age… You’ve already gotten off to a good start. 

Now I’d like to address the family and friends of our graduates.  The Inquiry Hub staff: our teachers, secretaries, and custodians, have watched these young folks blossom over the past four years. They came to us with unique talents and gifts, and while some of them needed a lot of help to figure out how to thrive at school, some needed no help at all. But no matter their starting point, they have all grown tremendously in ways that are hard to measure. 

You have a lot to be proud of in this group. They have not only thrived at school, they have also thrived in their activities in the community and thrived at work. They have made us so proud of them, and you should be proud too. Think back to what they were like four years ago. 

Pay attention to the things they value and share with you. Watch the way they interact and engage with the world around them. They are wonderful human beings, and while parents can take pride and pat themselves on the back, remember that these young grads are also young adults who deserve to be appreciated for the fine people that they have become. 

Stop and pay attention, and we can see what a community can build when people choose to invest their time, their energy, and their care in one another.

Graduates, in a world where everyone and every deviceis competing for your attention, remember that your attention is your life. Every hour you give away is an hour you never get back. Spend it on people. Spend it on ideas worth wrestling with. Spend it building things that matter.

And to your families: Thank you for giving these graduates your attention long before they ever earned a diploma. They are sitting here today because of countless rides, conversations, encouragements, reminders, sacrifices, and moments that probably seemed ordinary at the time. They weren’t ordinary. They mattered.

So today, celebrate this milestone. Put the phones away and look around this room. Pay attention to these graduates, to your families, and to this moment.

Because years from now, you won’t remember what was on your screen. You’ll remember who was sitting with you, who leant you an ear when you needed someone to listen to you, and who disagreed with you in class, but did so in a way that was respectful. And even if you never do another fishbowl discussion, you’ll remember that Inquiry Hub was the school you chose, you attended, and you gave your full attention to. 

Congratulations, Class of 2026.