Metadata →
AI can help us explore new ideas, but we must stay responsible for our own thinking. We should be curious about AI while also questioning how it shapes our learning and work. Working with AI works best when we use it to support, not replace, human intelligence and conversation.
Highlights
id1014334167
how many people have heard someone say AI will destroy thinking? Excellent. You’re participating in a tradition that’s about 2,500 years old. Socrates worried that writing would weaken memory. That once things were written down, people would stop truly knowing them.
El pánico moral asociado a nuevas tecnologías del conocimiento tiene más de 2500 años de antigüedad .
id1014335778
what we’re experiencing right now is actually a familiar kind of moment. A moment when our tools are changing faster than our habits. Faster than our institutions. Sometimes even faster than our language for describing what’s happening.
id1014337497
In moments of rapid technological change, withdrawal can feel like the responsible move. But the longer I’ve sat with this question, the more I’ve come to feel that—especially in education—that option doesn’t feel right. Abstinence and censorship do not feel like the right tools for education. Because our students are already walking into a world where these tools exist. In workplaces. In research environments. In creative industries. In everyday productivity software. They are already shaping the environments our students inhabit, whether we like it or not.
Completamente de acuerdo, lo único que lograrán los sistemas educativos que asumen una posición de censura respecto de la IA es alienar a sus aprendices, que hacen uso de ella en sus vidas cotidianas, así como también su entorno, que empieza a ser en el mundo en conjunto con ella.
id1014354971
If students only learn how to use the tool, we’ve failed them. And if we pretend the tool isn’t there or there is no value or meaning to it, we’ve also failed them. The real educational challenge is helping people develop judgment. Helping them ask questions like: • What is this tool actually doing? • Where does it work well? • Where does it fail? • Where does it distort? • Who is doing the thinking here?
Con lo cual, los docentes debiesen tener respuestas decentes para estas preguntas también. Están buenas como para orientar el diseño de mis cursos.
id1014355667
a trend I started to notice and learn from others was that I could use the tool to learn about the tool.
Este nivel meta es algo súper importante, porque abre el camino a que la gente experimente de primera mano la potencia de la IA como ZDP adaptativa, mientras al mismo tiempo desarrolla los modelos cognitivos requeridos para sacarle mayor provecho. Es win win. Importante tenerlo considerado para el diseño de mis cursos.
id1014397090
As I’ve come to learn these practices, I started another practice. Instead of just asking the system for answers, I started asking it to ask me questions. To push back. To ask me what I actually meant. To ask me to clarify my thinking.
Esta es otra de las formas en las que la IA actúa como ZDP: haciéndote preguntas, desafiando tu conocimiento, que es básicamente “hacer las reps” del ejercicio en el gimnasio.
id1014400068
That is exciting. It’s also exactly why the question of groundedness matters so much. If we collapse the distance between imagination and execution, then the temptation becomes to just keep building, generating, producing. Not only our own inner temptation but, unfortunately, the external expectation of our world. Producing more becomes the point. But we always need to stop in order to ask what we are learning in the process. Over time, one question I keep coming back to in my usage of AI, and as I think about what it means to be a person and a professional in today’s world. Who is doing the meaning-making here?
Las affordances de la IA Agéntica, así como el efecto de asombro y empoderamiento que genera, incide en u a disposición tipo “caballo de carrera”, en donde uno crea y crea y crea, porque el costo es marginal y cosas que antes eran trabajos de varias horas se vuelven prototipos desechables. El problema con esto ha sido descrito como “deuda cognitiva”, en el sentido de que este furor lo lleva a uno a avanzar sin tomarse el tiempo para reflexionar sobre lo que está haciendo, cosa que antes venía imbricado en el proceso mismo, en la medida en que el esfuerzo requerido era costoso, por lo cual uno reflexionaba constantemente sobre la mejor manera de invertir los recursos disponibles.
id1014400509
if the tool replaces our thinking or just embeds too deeply as our thinking, we will lose something important. The goal is to use the tool, not have the tool use us. Have it challenge, push, or extend your thinking and see what else becomes possible.
Asociado a la noción de centauro inverso.
id1014418346
These questions and how we go about exploring the answers are not unique to AI. They are questions that have accompanied nearly every major technological shift. These are perpetual problems–important issues to grapple with as we have with every technology. The difference in this moment is the speed at which this technological change makes us face those questions much sooner than our institutions are used to processing them.
Sobre la velocidad de esta transición tecnológica versus las anteriores, y las implicancias que esto tiene tanto en el desfase entre las capacidades y su percolación en las estructuras sociales como en la capacidad humana para adaptarse un nicho ecológico radicalmente distinto.
id1014418646
I can see in many ways that AI becomes most valuable when it helps us explore, articulate, test, and extend ideas without relieving us of the responsibility for thinking.
Principio fundamental para el uso en educación: no debe reemplazar el pensamiento en las materias propias de los objetivos de aprendizaje.