My column this week in Invertia is titled آ«Artificial intelligence and education: let’s not make mistakes againآ» (pdf), and tries to relate the decision of many educational institutions and governments to radically prohibit smartphones in education “because they are dangerous” with what has happened so far with generative artificial intelligence, which was also banned and is now the protagonist of persecutions using absurd tools to try to identify whether students have used it or not.
As always, the truth lies somewhere in the middle: neither smartphones at all times and for everything, nor algorithms used in such a way that students do not see it necessary to learn anything. But when a technology is positioned as one of the so-called “general purpose”, and therefore becomes protagonists of a revolution in its adoption process and we can be sure that it will become part of our lives we want or not, we have to treat it as such and integrate it into the educational process, and if it is potentially dangerous, even more so. Relegating it to prohibition only means giving up on education, and therefore, generating more serious problems when those students finally have access to it.
Canadian economists Richard Lipsey, Ken Carlaw y Cliff Singlein his book come onEconomic transformations: general purpose technologies and long-term economic growthcome onestimate twenty-four technologies defined as general purpose that have emerged throughout human history, including agriculture, the manufacturing system, the development of metallurgy and materials such as bronze or iron. , writing, printing, electricity until, of course, the internet or the smartphone. If it had been written now, and not in 2006, the list would, of course and without a doubt, include artificial intelligence. We are talking about technologies that are not only protagonists of diffusion processes brilliant, but they are also capable of making an enormous difference between those who have access to them and those who do not.
Today, it would be unimaginable for us to consider our society without these technologies, although given the relative novelty of the most recent ones, some still try to abhor them and consider that any past time was better. Obviously, technologies are just that, tools, which allows them to be used positively or negatively. Throughout the development and adoption process, these positive uses are accompanied by irresponsible and potentially dangerous uses, as has happened with a smartphone which in principle is very interesting as a powerful pocket computer, but which also becomes, due to the development of certain harmful business models, a dangerously addictive tool.
The way to react to this type of danger is, as we well know with previous technologies, education. No reasonable person today would think of prohibiting metallurgy because it can make dangerous weapons, nor writing or printing because they can be used to express dangerous ideas. However, that did happen in the past: the Ottoman Empire, for example, tried unsuccessfully to ban the printing press, and managed to delay its adoption for three centuries. The problem of containment, very well illustrated by Mustafa Suleyman in the first chapters of his recent book come onThe coming wavecome onis that exercising it is extremely delicate, and except on very rare and very specific occasions, it never works.
When something is considered potentially dangerous but we know that its use is likely to make a positive difference, what society must do is educate about that use. In the case of those relatively recent technologies, such as the Internet, the smartphone or artificial intelligence, we are in that case. Companies, for some years, tried to prohibit Internet access for their workers because “they were distracted.” The schools did the same, and supported by mentalities in many cases populist and by obviously very poorly elaborated ideas from some governments, they intend to do the same with the smartphonesignoring that expressly refusing to educate in its use means creating a generation of clumsy ignorant people who, as soon as they can get their hands on a smartphonethey will do so without having received the proper instruction (and I am not referring to technical instruction, that is practically obvious) and, therefore, they will be susceptible to falling into all kinds of problems and dangers that many companies Irresponsible people design for it.
The same thing is happening with artificial intelligence. We are talking about an undoubtedly very powerful technology, but one that must be, as such, managed, never prohibited. The first wave of reactions from educational institutions to the launch of ChatGPT in November 2022 was very clear: its use had to be prohibited. Since then, a constant war has been taking place between students what intend use it constantly and for everythingand institutions and professors who they try to identify using various tools (generally very unreliable and highly unrecommended) when it has been used, and threaten to all kinds of sanctionsfrom suspension to expulsion.
No, once again, the ban does not make any sense, as it does not try to return to paper and pencil claiming that “any time in the past was better.” It is simply absurd to give up educating in technologies that students will need without any doubt in the future. Is artificial intelligence dangerous for learning? Potentially yes, but that, again, should not imply its prohibition, but rather education in its use.
An interesting recent study, come onAI tools in society: impacts on cognitive offloading and the
future of critical thinkingcome onproves that, as I ventured at the time in an article that has already been republished and translated on several occasions, the use of generative artificial intelligence tools in critical thinking tend to promote what is known as cognitive offloadingcognitive offloading: we tend to delegate mental tasks to the external system, in many cases, also, with very little supervision. Artificial intelligence tools reduce cognitive load by automating routine tasks, but that convenience decreases the opportunities for our brain to participate in critical and reflective processes, fundamental in learning.
This leads us to the fact that the frequent use of artificial intelligence tools, if we do not associate it with the necessary instructions or adequate training in their use, tends to be associated with lower scores in critical thinking, especially among younger students, who quickly begin to show a greater dependence on these tools compared to older age groups who use them more appropriately. It is very similar to what happens with the calculator: obviously, its use cannot be recommended when a student has not yet developed basic mathematical skills, but it is completely absurd to prohibit it at more advanced levels or for certain tasks.
The important thing, therefore, is to raise a reflection on how our growing dependence on artificial intelligence could weaken essential skills such as critical thinking and problem solving especially in younger generations, highlighting the importance of finding a balance between taking advantage of the benefits of artificial intelligence and maintain our independent cognitive abilities, without giving up education as we did with the smartphones. At some point the teachers considered using the smartphones as part of the educational process, even replacing the textbook? No, and in fact, the majority treated that idea as blasphemy and limited themselves to calling for its prohibition. Now, a generation of students who are impressionable, fickle and incapable of differentiating hoaxes and misinformation from realities demonstrate that this was a gross mistake that, as a society, we will pay for for a long time.
This leads us, therefore, to the enormous importance of incorporating artificial intelligence in the educational process, but to do it in the appropriate way, with supervision and with the guarantees that the student does not “subcontract” his critical thinking to the algorithm, but rather uses it as another ingredient in its production process. Do not prohibitbut supervise and teach how to use. Use artificial intelligence It is not necessarily copyingand in fact, Its use is the future of education.
If we opt for maximalist approaches, for restrictive prohibitions and for absurd persecutions using tools that fail very easily and generate false accusations, we will be repeating previous mistakes, and refusing to educate in tools that anyone can understand that are fundamental for the future.
Let us consider carefully, without extremism or historical reactions, the strategy of educational institutions with respect to artificial intelligence: we could be running the risk of giving rise to another generation of ignorant people incapable of using the tools, which are enormously difficult. easy to use, but to use them well and with adequate guarantees. Let’s not make the same mistake again.
This article is also available in English on my Medium page,آ آ«We’ve tried banning technology in education before, let’s not make the same mistake with AIcome on