Struggling to be Productive
- 18 hours ago
- 5 min read
CONTRIBUTOR: Jeff Hausman, AVLI Founder & President
A few months back, we received word that our petition to join the Rome Call was accepted. In response to the introduction and rapid development of artificial intelligence, AVLI has been exploring how to best adopt AI into our work and, more importantly, how to foster effective and responsible use in young people. Our desire to join the Rome Call was to ensure that our approach to this burgeoning phenomena would remain rooted in a decidedly humanistic ethos - where tools and technologies of all kinds are recognized for their utility and capacity to serve humanity which necessarily has one foot in the present and a second in the future.
For the purpose of this article, when I speak of artificial intelligence, I am referring to the specific form of AI known as large language models (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude…). It is hard to deny the capacity AI has demonstrated across multiple domains. Some detractors will point to AI’s tendencies to “hallucinate” and/or produce inaccurate information which is obviously problematic. Still, the world before AI was not devoid of factual misrepresentation, data manipulation, “hallucinations”, and straight-up gobbledygook.
The larger issues with AI relate to ethics, and they are numerous, largely unresolved, and rarely discussed in the public square. Not since the advent of the atomic bomb has there been a time in human history where our dominion over the natural world has been more apparent and precarious. In recognizing our awesome responsibility, this is a time for treading lightly - not to stop, but to proceed with care. What I worry about most is not the power of AI, but the power of AI in the hands of foolish men and women.
Fueled by the prospect of vast wealth, developers of AI are building tools they don’t fully understand, with little concern for consequence, and largely inadequate safeguards. While the number of promising applications is ever expanding, so are the pitfalls. Bad actors of all nationalities and political stripes are using AI to intentionally sow false narratives and discontent. Image generators are being used to exploit, objectify, and dehumanize. And AI is raising the specter of more sophisticated identity theft schemes and scams. In short, AI slop is less about “AI” and more about the humans directing it.
It’s also become more clear that advances in AI will have considerable impact on our natural resources, power infrastructure and more, yet there doesn’t appear to be any acknowledgment that the only way to responsibly usher in this new age is to address these issues in a sober, coordinated manner that weighs costs against benefits and takes into consideration the greater good. Take, for instance, fresh water. AI requires vast quantities of it to keep its computing infrastructure cool. It’s also required to maintain life and human flourishing. So what happens in times or locations of scarcity? Do people take precedence over machines? If yes, is that all people or just some? What about animals and all other living things? What happens if our food supply and our information supply begin competing for the same water? Who gets to decide?
In Brave New World, Aldous Huxley wrote, “Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth.” This feels like our current modus operandi. To achieve breakthrough status, some would argue that we have to be willing to take the good with the bad. Perhaps. But it also seems highly plausible that many of the more substantial potential harms could be mitigated by simply slowing down and being more purposeful and transparent.
Additionally, much more time should be devoted to determining which breakthroughs are actually desirable. Building powerful machines is different from building powerful technologies that are meant to improve quality of life. At this point, it feels like we are building machines and then trying to backfill purpose.
I recognize this isn’t the rosiest picture. To be clear, what I’ve written above captures my own neurotic sense of reality regarding AI. It may or may not resonate with you, and many working in the world of AI may consider these thoughts to be completely unfounded. You may also get the sense that I am anti-AI which is not really the case. In my role, it’s important to consider such matters and their implications on the educational landscape which, for me, means thinking about our young people today and striving to educate them for a life of meaning and purpose over the next twenty or thirty years.
Thus, when I consider my own response to AI, what I recognize mostly is my lack of agency over its progression and outcomes, and its impact on my future self - and that’s coming from a fairly connected person with stable work and a shorter horizon. I can only imagine how young people must feel with the normal pressures of adolescence now amplified by social media, traditional paths to success being questioned, and the world at large feeling more volatile.
The paradox for young people is that, while they reckon with the uncertainties that AI has introduced, they also recognize the power AI possesses in helping them quickly and efficiently negotiate our traditionally transactional form of schooling. Among teachers and administrators, much attention has rightfully been given to student use of AI for essay writing. It’s hard to remove thinking from the writing process, so focusing on authentic writing is important. However, students are also using AI to summarize texts they don’t want to read, record and summarize lectures, outline projects, create presentations, generate practice questions, build computer code, and more. Which of these things are appropriate? Which are detrimental to learning? I certainly don’t have the answer.
At AVLI, we’re attempting to reframe these questions around the role of productive struggle in revealing through patience and perseverance a hope-filled future. Viewed through the lens of hope, we recognize the capacity of AI to extend human thinking and to draw us closer in solidarity to improve the human condition. Viewed through the lens of struggle, we recognize that we cannot rely on AI to do all of the work. In order for AI to extend our thinking, we must first attain the requisite level of knowledge within a particular domain to be able to perceive next-level pathways. Depending on the circumstances, all of the AI use cases mentioned above could support a students’ acquisition of knowledge. So too could constructive dialogue, immersion, experimentation, reflective practice, and numerous other approaches unrelated to AI. The key is to obtain agreement between teacher and students on what needs to be learned and why, and then set an appropriate course of action and related guardrails that allows students some level of agency over the means by which their learning is achieved.
To some, the prospect of promoting productive struggle amongst students may seem like a losing proposition. After all, when it comes to their studies, patience and perseverance aren’t qualities your average teen is known to demonstrate. Couple that with the public-facing value proposition of AI to quickly and effortlessly produce information in succinct, consumable packets, and asking kids to embrace difficulties seems fruitless. However, I believe that what teens might lack in patience and perseverance they make up for in a desire to pursue something of meaning - even the cynics. In that regard, there has never been a better time to encourage and expect intrepid behavior from our students and from ourselves. It’s time to set sail for destinations not fully known, and in so doing, we become advocates and agents of the AI era. And through the productive struggle we have fostered in our students, they will be prepared to help guide the complex ethical conversations of our future world toward the common good.
vol 7 issue 7
