I think we should all experiment with different varieties of friction in the learning space to make residential learning unique and distinguished from the Edtech that’s dominating student lives. In the end I believe online learning will be entirely AI. That may help many students, but those who seek in-person learning should be given a break from the deluge of bots.
Fan of your work, Marc, & this latest is really useful. I expect I will refer to that timeline in the future. I’m not sure luddification is durable. For some disciplines & course topics more than others. But I think it can be part of a broader strategy to empower instructors in EdTech adoption decisions.
This is really helpful for thinking through the intersection of pedagogical choice with system effects.
I'm in a similar space where I'm pretty certain these tools can be deployed to good effect for student learning, while also believing they'd have little utility in my particular classroom run on my particular values, while also becoming increasingly concerned about the "technofeudalism" dreams of people like Altman. When I was writing More Than Words I viewed Altman, et al, as standard tech entrepreneurs who use "storytelling" to sell a product. I want to resist that storytelling with counter stories.
But their aims are clearly bigger and entwined with Trump's authoritarian push. When I see CalState and Ohio State leaping in with both feet to give these companies what they need to advance their goals (all that delicious data), it's clear either their leadership isn't thinking at the level you demonstrate here, or they're generally cool with technofeudalism as long as they get to be near the front of the trough. Either of those scenarios is worrisome.
I think CalState especially the end goal is to eliminate human labor as much as possible. They think they have an unsustainable system because they can't afford people. This is their chance to have fewer of them.
Thank you for these points. I teach community college in California and am appalled by the CSU system and other education institutions bringing in AI systemwide, with little to no faculty input, and into every aspect of the student experience.
I understand that this is an article written by an educator for educators. There are surely things you'd say differently when speaking to students. Still, I spent most of the time reading imagining how I would manage such ideas in my own class, and I got really hung up on this line:
"But I prefer it when I can negotiate the ethical minefield of consumer capitalism on my own terms, rather than have my employer do it for me."
Broadly speaking I agree with this ideal, but it sits uneasily when we are on the other side of the power dynamic. What have you said to students who complain that your luddified classroom does not permit them the same courtesy? ("What would you say...?" seems wrong— I imagine you have indeed been asked this question, if perhaps not phrased so gently.)
I appreciate the post and wrote something similar a few days ago about the existing Edtech on campuses being upgraded to AI without notice, consent, or faculty governance. https://open.substack.com/pub/marcwatkins/p/your-campus-already-has-aiand-thats?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
My colleague taught without any tech a few semesters ago and truly enjoyed the experience, but doesn’t think it it ultimately sustainable for a full load of classes and he could never get feedback to them in time. Still, I see value in the exercise. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/digital-writing-researcher-teaches-without-tools-robert-cummings-vhzbf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=guest_mobile_web&utm_campaign=copy
I think we should all experiment with different varieties of friction in the learning space to make residential learning unique and distinguished from the Edtech that’s dominating student lives. In the end I believe online learning will be entirely AI. That may help many students, but those who seek in-person learning should be given a break from the deluge of bots.
Fan of your work, Marc, & this latest is really useful. I expect I will refer to that timeline in the future. I’m not sure luddification is durable. For some disciplines & course topics more than others. But I think it can be part of a broader strategy to empower instructors in EdTech adoption decisions.
This is really helpful for thinking through the intersection of pedagogical choice with system effects.
I'm in a similar space where I'm pretty certain these tools can be deployed to good effect for student learning, while also believing they'd have little utility in my particular classroom run on my particular values, while also becoming increasingly concerned about the "technofeudalism" dreams of people like Altman. When I was writing More Than Words I viewed Altman, et al, as standard tech entrepreneurs who use "storytelling" to sell a product. I want to resist that storytelling with counter stories.
But their aims are clearly bigger and entwined with Trump's authoritarian push. When I see CalState and Ohio State leaping in with both feet to give these companies what they need to advance their goals (all that delicious data), it's clear either their leadership isn't thinking at the level you demonstrate here, or they're generally cool with technofeudalism as long as they get to be near the front of the trough. Either of those scenarios is worrisome.
I think CalState especially the end goal is to eliminate human labor as much as possible. They think they have an unsustainable system because they can't afford people. This is their chance to have fewer of them.
I saw the OSU mandate yesterday after I posted this. It definitely felt like confirmation!
Thank you for these points. I teach community college in California and am appalled by the CSU system and other education institutions bringing in AI systemwide, with little to no faculty input, and into every aspect of the student experience.
I understand that this is an article written by an educator for educators. There are surely things you'd say differently when speaking to students. Still, I spent most of the time reading imagining how I would manage such ideas in my own class, and I got really hung up on this line:
"But I prefer it when I can negotiate the ethical minefield of consumer capitalism on my own terms, rather than have my employer do it for me."
Broadly speaking I agree with this ideal, but it sits uneasily when we are on the other side of the power dynamic. What have you said to students who complain that your luddified classroom does not permit them the same courtesy? ("What would you say...?" seems wrong— I imagine you have indeed been asked this question, if perhaps not phrased so gently.)