Tag Archives: technology

The easy way out

I love the ingenuity of students when it comes to avoiding work. I remember a student showing me how playing 3 French YouTube videos in different tabs simultaneously somehow fooled the Rosetta Stone language learning software to think he was responding to oral tests correctly. How on earth did he figure that out?

Here’s a video of a kid who, while doing an online math quiz for homework, figured out that if you go to the web browser’s developer ‘inspect element’ tool you can find out the correct answer. Just hover over the code of the multiple choice questions and it highlights the choices and the code tells you if that choice is true or false.

@imemezy

Kids know every trick in the book…i mean computer #computer #maths #homework #madeeasy #lol #children #schoolwork #schools #hack #hacks #tricks #tips #test #exam #learning #learn

♬ original sound – Memezy

If there is an easy way to solve things, students will figure it out.

There isn’t an AI detector that can figure out with full certainty that someone cheated using a tool like Chat GPT. And if you find one, it probably would not detect it if the student also used an AI paraphrasing tool to rework the final product. It would be harder again if their prompt said something like, ‘Use grammar, sentence structure, and word choice that a Grade 10 student would use’.

So AI will be used for assignments. Students will go into the inspector code of a web page and find the right answers, and it’s probably already the case that shy students have trained an AI tool to speak with their voice so that they could submit oral (and even video) work without actually having to read anything aloud.

These tools are getting better and better, and thus much harder to detect.

I think tricks and tools like this invite educators to be more creative about what they do in class. We are seeing some of this already, but we are also seeing a lot of backwards sliding: School districts blocking AI tools, teachers giving tests on computers that are blocked from accessing the internet, and even teachers making students, who are used to working with computers, write paper tests.

Meanwhile other teachers are embracing the changes. Wes Fryer created AI Guidelines for students to tell them how to use these tools appropriately for school work. That seems far more enabling than locking tools down and blocking them. Besides, I think that if students are going to use these tools outside of school anyway, we should focus on teaching them appropriate use rather than creating a learning environment that is nothing like the real world.

All that said, if you send home online math quizzes, some students will find an easy way to avoid doing the work. If you have students write essays at home and aren’t actively having them revise that work in class, some will use AI. Basically, some students will cheat the system, and themselves of the learning experience, if they are given the opportunity to do so.

The difference is that innovative, creative teachers will use these tools to enhance learning, and they will be in position to learn along with students how to embrace these tools openly, rather than kids sneakily using them to avoid work, or to lessen the work they need to do… either way, kids are going to use these tools.

Moving from autopilot to copilot

Three minutes into this video Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, is asked, “Why do you think the moment for AI (Artificial Intelligence) is now?”

After mentioning that AI is already mainstream, and used in search, news aggregation and social media recommendations (like the next videos on Facebook & TikTok, etc), he states,

“Today’s generation of AI is all autopilot. In fact, it is a black box that is dictating in fact how our attention is focused. Whereas going forward, the thing that’s most exciting about this generation of AI is perhaps we move from autopilot to copilot, where we actually prompt it.”

This is a fascinating point. When you order something on Amazon, their next purchase recommendation is automated by AI, so is your next video on Instagram Reels, YouTube, and TikTok. We don’t fully understand the decision-making behind this ‘intelligence’, except when it goes wrong. Even then it’s a bit of a black box of calculations that aren’t always clear or understood. In essence, we are already heavily influenced by AI. The difference with LLM’s – Large Language Models – like Chat GPT is that we prompt it. We get to copilot. We get to create with it, and have it co-create art, email messages, books, computer code, to do lists, schoolwork/homework, and even plan our vacations.

I really like the metaphor of moving from autopilot to copilot. It is empowering and creates a future of opportunities. AI isn’t new, but what we can do with it now is quite new… and exciting!

——

The full video Microsoft & OpenAI CEOs: Dawn of the AI Wars | The Circuit with Emily Chang is worth watching:

The mischaracterization of the Metaverse

“The Metaverse is already here.” That’s the insight that never really occurred to me until I heard Mustafa Suleyman, Google’s Deep Mind Co-founder, on The Diary of a CEO podcast with Steven Bartlett.

“You know, the last three years people have been talking about Metaverse, Metaverse, Metaverse. And the mischaracterization of the Metaverse was that it’s over there. It was this like virtual world that we would all bop around in and talk to each other as these little characters, but that was totally wrong. That was a complete miss-framing. The Metaverse is already here. It’s the digital space that exists in parallel time to our everyday life. It’s the conversation that you will have on Twitter or, you know, the video that you’ll post on YouTube, or this podcast that will go out and connect with other people. It’s that meta-space of interaction, you know, and I use meta to mean ‘beyond this space’, not just that weird other, ‘over there’, space that people seem to point to.”

We are already in the Metaverse, I’m in the same room as my daughter right now. She’s watching a movie, I’m writing on my phone. We are entered into parallel universes, physically together but disconnected. We are both in spaces, on screens, beyond the physical space we are in.

Before hearing this quote, I thought of the Metaverse as something in the future, like the ‘fitless humans‘ from the movie WALL•E.

We are already there. We have iPads babysit (or at least occupy the attention of) our kids. We rage about stupid things on Twitter and YouTube. We share content with people we have never met, and they share content with us. We are influenced by influencers. We buy things from virtual stores. We play games with people in different time zones.

The Metaverse is already here creating parallel experiences to the ones we physically experience… It’s not something we are heading towards. We are already living a good part of our lives, ‘in spaces beyond the physical space we are in‘. Sometimes it’s hard to see the forest through the trees, or in this case the spaces beyond our screens.

New tools, old borders

For the 3rd or 4th time this year I’ve tried to sign up for a new AI tool only to find out that it isn’t available in Canada yet. I get it, I understand that there are specific rules and regulations in each country. I know that Canada often lags behind other countries because there are language laws requiring tools to offer policies and pricing etc. in both French and English. I even know that many of these rules are to help me, the consumer. That said, I find it frustrating that red tape is an innovative restriction. The speed of creativity and ingenuity is faster than ever, and we can’t seem to figure out how to keep the opportunities open and equal.

And yes, I understand this topic is complex. How complex? “All news in Canada will be removed from Facebook, Instagram within weeks: Meta“. It’s messy merging rules for access with rules to support consumers and be protective of Canadian content. But when new laws are drawn up, they need to come from a place of cooperation, not restriction; collaboration, not exclusivity.

It may not seem like a big deal to have to wait longer than most to get access to some cool tools, but that wait comes at a price… A price I think Canadians are going to pay for quite some time before innovation trumps protectionism. It is what it is/C’est comme ça.

Backwards momentum

Here is a news article shared with me today, “Quebec to ban cellphones in elementary and high school classrooms“.

I created this graphic and wrote about it in March of 2009, “Is the tool an obstacle or an opportunity?“:

Here is another image I created in March of 2010, “Warning! We Filter Websites at School”

Related to artificial intelligence (AI), I’ve written “Use it or fall behind“, “You can’t police it“, and “Fear of Disruptive Technology“. The third link also shared the images above.

How are we talking about, actually no, how are we implementing technology bans in public schools in 2023? In Canada? It would be comical if it wasn’t sad.

This is going to be a farce trying to police. Good luck getting students to take off their Apple Watches. Have fun trying to stop the texts and chats from moving onto their laptops. Enjoy confiscating student’s second phones, after they handed you their old phone first. Don’t think that will be a problem? You’ll also need to confiscate glasses too.

https://youtu.be/xll2Ycc6Fv0

It’s time to realize that it’s better to manage rather than police these tools. Banning won’t work. That’s so 2009. It’s time to realize that while “It’s going to get messy“, “The challenge ahead is creating learning opportunities where it is obvious when the tool is and isn’t used. It’s having the tool in your tool box, but not using it for every job… and getting students to do the same.”

Manage the disruption, don’t ban it. Be educators, not law enforcers.

Moments of silence

There was a time when moments of silence were golden. When being alone with my thoughts was quiet and contemplative. When no sound meant calm and inspired serenity.

Now I fill those moments. I listen to books, podcasts, and music. I avoid the silence because that’s when my tinnitus gets loud… and even if I wanted that silence, I wouldn’t get it. My tinnitus is a constant tone, for others it’s like crickets. For anyone who has it, it’s the end of silence.

But there is another kind of silence. It’s the quiet of the mind. It’s like an ocean without waves. This is even more elusive. It is the moments when our minds are not reliving the past or creating unlikely futures. It is when our minds are not thinking about our schedule, worrying about our responsibilities, or planning our next moment, meeting, or meal.

It is when there is nothing to do, but there is no boredom.

It is when nothing is pressing, and there is no need to rush.

It’s also when you don’t seek a distraction. But now the distraction is always there. It looks like Facebook or TikTok, Instagram or Twitter, YouTube or Audible, text or email, WhatsApp or Snapchat.

We have let technology steal away our moments of silence. We are robbed of those golden moments. The dopamine rush of the next notification is too great to resist, and too daunting to allow silence a chance. Silence is no longer a desired state, it is a state of absence to avoid, not a desired state of stillness.

Moments of silence were already elusive, now they are all but nonexistent. I even wonder if for someone younger, who spent their teen years with a smartphone, if silence was ever known, is ever desirable? Or is this just a nostalgic ideal?

It’s quiet now, but my tinnitus sings it’s ever present song, and I put on some background music. The silence is gone.

Post card from a train

I’m on a Go Train heading to visit a buddy. He offered to pick me up but it would be about an hour and a half each way, and only a 30 minute walk for me to get to the train and less than 5 minutes for him to get me from there. So, I’m on a train heading to his place.

I bought the ticket online, and it has a live countdown showing how long it’s valid for on my phone’s browser:

I just finished listening to a podcast that comes out of Great Britain, and now I’m publishing a blog post to readers from as nearby as Toronto and Texas to far away countries like the Philippines and China… and probably a few more in the Vancouver Lower Mainland.

I’m travelling on a technology developed in the late 1700’s to transport people and freight, while simultaneously connecting to the world with late 1900’s technology. It makes we wonder, will there still be trains in the late 2100’s? I think so. They might be hovering on a superconductive rail, traveling at high speeds with zero cost to run them, but there will still probably be people regularly travelling by train. They will probably still be roughly the same size too. After all, they will likely still use the same infrastructure and track routes that are laid down.

In many ways, trains are like post cards from the past. No, in fact that’s a terrible analogy, because post cards are almost never sent anymore, yet trains persist. I’m writing a kind of post card now. I’m on a train, that is using tracks laid before I was born, but my version of a post card is a relatively new novelty… I can share words, images, videos, and even sounds if I want. I can ask an artificial intelligence to create an image to go with this post card, and share an image of my ticket. And no stamp is required, no waiting for postal delivery.

So in true post card fashion I’ll sign off by saying,

Love to all, and hope to see you soon, XOXOXO

Superconductors and aliens

What a crazy bit of news out the last couple days! Ambient temperature and pressure superconductors could change the world and so too could the admission that we are not alone in the universe. Both of these are things that deserve scrutiny and further evidence. That said, what an exciting time to be alive.

Room temperature superconductivity has been a physics Nobel Prize waiting to happen. So much of the energy we use is lost in transmission. Furthermore, this invention will make nuclear fusion containable, without significant cost and dangers of a breach because superconductors used for plasma containment won’t need to sustain unbelievably cold temperatures next to an extremely hot process. In other words, energy is about to get a lot easier to produce and share.

As for aliens, I think there is enough evidence to say that there are flying vehicles that do things human-made vehicles can’t. Whether aliens are in these vehicles or if they are run remotely (they pull some high g-force moves that would destroy a human), they are definitely not human made. So what are they, and who/what made them?

I’m mixing my enthusiasm with a dose of scepticism, but unlike most other news stories, these are two I’m going to be watching!

Not a question of first or rare or distant

When thinking about whether we are alone in the universe or not, it seems to me that it isn’t a question of whether we (intelligent life) are rare? Or are we first/early compared to other intelligent life? Or are we simply too far away? But rather a question of enduring. Are intelligent civilizations enduring enough to travel beyond their solar system or galaxy?

The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. Scientists today are looking for life in our very own solar system. It’s possible, in our vast universe, that our quest for life beyond earth may be as close as Saturn’s moon, Enceladus. It would probably b\e microbes, too small to see without a microscope, but that would still suggest that life is way more abundant than even most scientists would have imagined just a few years ago.

But I’m more a believer that the reason we don’t see alien life is for two reasons, the first being distance. Quite simply, even the nearest galaxy to our Milky way is astronomically far away.  “The closest known galaxy to us is the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy, at 236,000,000,000,000,000 km (25,000 light years) from the Sun. The Sagittarius Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy is the next closest , at 662,000,000,000,000,000 km (70,000 light years) from the Sun.” If intelligent life started sending messages to us from the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy 10,000 years ago, it would still take 15,000 years to reach us if they could do the unlikely task of sending that message at the speed of light… and the crazy thing is, why would they send a message our way? 10,000 years ago there was no evidence coming from earth that we are a worthy planet to send a message to!

And the second reason we don’t see any intelligent life ‘out there’ in the universe is The Great Filter. Either it is extremely rare and difficult to get beyond simple, unintelligent multicellular life, or civilizations themselves getting to multi solar system travel capabilities are extremely rare. This second point is my belief. Civilizations are not enduring enough. It took Homo sapiens 300,000 years to become a scientifically intelligent life form that attempted to leave our planet and explore our solar system. During this time, we’ve been brutal to each other. We’ve created weapons of mass destruction and quite literally drawn lines in the sand to keep us separate from our brothers and sisters.

We’ve created religions that don’t like each other and think all other Gods are unworthy of following. We’ve created borders that keep ‘others’ out. We’ve created governments that are more interested in power than in caring for fellow humans. We’ve created corporations that worry more about profit than about caring for our planet. All the while we also create technologies that threaten the longevity of humanity. As technological innovations occur, it becomes easier for individuals and small groups to terrorize larger groups. It becomes easier for a single unstable person to threaten larger and larger populations around our planet.

What happens 50 years from now when a kid can create a devastating bomb or virus in their basement with readily available resources? Is that a world where we continue to advance technologically? Albert Einstein is often quoted as having said: “I don’t know with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones“. In other words, we will destroy ourselves and become far more primitive, much less advanced. Imagine our world with no power grid, and no internet. How long would it take to get back to where we are now? What if the next pandemic is far more deadly and has us living like subsistence farmers, keeping ourselves in tiny communities, afraid of outsiders. How many hundreds of years would we be set back, and would we be trying to explore the cosmos when survival is our greatest concern?

I tend to be an optimist, and I’m excited about the future ahead of us. I think my kids have the potential to live healthy, productive, and cognitively sound lives past 100 years of age. I think there will be universal basic income for every human alive, and that things like childhood starvation and extreme poverty could come to an end. Technological advances could make us live healthier, longer, more fulfilling and creative lives. But I also fear that greed, power, and beliefs in bad ideas could corrupt us, and undermine our potential. Are we 50, 100, or 1,000 years away from ravaging our planet or at least the human race? Or are we a species that will populate other parts of our galaxy?

If I was an alien who came to explore earth today, I’m not sure I’d report back to my planet the the inhabitants are intelligent? I’m not sure I’d consider humans technologically advanced enough to seek contact? I’d be conveying that earthlings are as likely to destroy themselves as they are to send someone out of their own solar system. I’d send a message home and say, ‘Let’s leave them alone for now and see what they can do in another couple hundred of their earth years?‘

‘Let’s see if this race of humans will endure?‘

Martec’s Law in education

In “Martec’s Law: the greatest management challenge of the 21st century” author Scott Brinker states:

“Three years ago, I described a conundrum that I dubbed Martec’s Law:

Technology changes exponentially, but organizations change logarithmically.

As shown in the graph [below], we know that technology changes at an exponential rate. This is the phenomenon of Moore’s Law— and, more broadly, Kurzweil’s Law of Accelerating Returns. But we also know that human organizations don’t change that quickly. Changes in behavior and culture take time. There are only so many changes in people, processes, and technology that an organization can productively absorb at once — at least without a major disruption.

So approximately speaking, organizations change at a logarithmic rate — much slower than exponential technological change.

In my opinion, Martec’s Law encapsulates the greatest management challenge of the 21st century: how do we manage relatively slow-changing organizations in a rapidly changing technological environment? It is a hard problem.”

I think this is something significant to consider in education. Schools tend to change quite slowly. It takes a very long time to change curriculum. Textbooks are a sunk cost on a fixed learning tool. Technology costs money and there are limited funds. And access to technology needs to be safe, and keep student information private.

Training is also a challenge. When a new technology is added to an organization, many employees get on-the-job training to learn how to use the technology appropriately. Often between 25-40% of the cost of a new tool could be put into training. That doesn’t happen in education. Teachers are in front of students daily; The technology itself tends to be 90%+ of the funding cost; and teachers get limited training and professional development.

Martec’s Law: “Technology changes exponentially, but organizations change logarithmically,” is exaggerated in education making adaptation to technology much slower. To appropriately integrate new technology requires systems thinking about how to scale.

I used to think that fearless ‘techie’ teachers, the innovators and early adopters, were the ones who really move education forward. I still see how they play an important role, but they transform classrooms not schools, much less districts. Now I see the value of district-wide initiatives where every teacher is given a minimal amount of access and training… in the same tools. Because tech support can’t be sustained when every teacher wants full access (cost and support) to the newest shiny technologies.

Large organizations with rich budgets only advance logarithmically while technology advances exponentially, so to expect schools to do the same on more limited, government funds is hardly realistic. Yes we need the outliers who will try new tools and share their knowledge, but we also need system wide support and training, on tools that are safe and educationally sound.

This is getting harder because technology today is less about purchasing tools and more about subscriptions. A single overhead projector can last a decade with a bulb change or two. A laptop can last 4 years. But a subscription to a tool that teachers become dependent on will have a yearly cost to it. And if that tool isn’t supported at the district level, then that leads to frustrations for educational leaders, teachers, and students alike.

Schools are not about kids having access to all the newest tech tools, they are places where kids learn to think critically and creatively, and to effectively use the tools available to them. Providing access to technology equitably requires sunk costs in tools, and subscriptions, with some training and support. Recognizing that the newest tech will almost always be out of reach for schools doesn’t mean they are falling behind, when even large high-budget organizations have difficulty keeping up. Rather, it’s districts and schools with vision about how to move forward as an entire organization that will keep up as technology exponentially changes.