Artificial Intelligence is merely an augmentation to a teacher for now. It can help the process of learning, but cannot totally replace teachers for now. What is your opinion about how we are becoming too much dependent on artificial intelligence ? Can it become a threat or an opportunity for teachers in the near future ?
AI cannot replace traditional teaching because it cannot cater for the three domains (cognitive, affective and psychomotor) expected of a learner to achieve at the end of a learning process.
As the technology is consistently and constantly redefining the role of teachers all through, in the same vein, AI too is poised to play a complementary and positive role in enhancing a student's engagement and assimilation of learning in long run. Student-centric perspective of AI shall bring good to all, including enriching the role and contribution of a teacher.
Who can create AI teaching system? The teacher is still important.!!
Good teacher was always a rarity. Good teacher could not be replaced. But most teachers will and should be replaced. C'est la vie.
Experienced teachers posses a wealth of tacit/embrained knowledge, which in itself is not that simple to externalise. Whilst, we may find tools to externalise some aspects of ones wisdom (Churchman), nonetheless, an AI system can be a catalyst in blended learning approaches to enhance teaching/learning in general.
As part of current technological progress, replacing a teacher with artificial intelligence may already be possible over the next few years. However, taking into account the specificity and multifaceted aspects, including social and interpersonal issues in the educational process, this should not happen 100%. Educational processes have been using technological innovations for many years. Currently e-learning is developing rapidly. The development of e-learning has now been accelerated with the development of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic causing Covid-19. The effectiveness and possibilities of educational processes are increasing thanks to the implementation of new ICT, Internet and Industry 4.0 information technologies, including cloud computing technology, the Internet of Things, learning machines and, in the following years, perhaps also artificial intelligence. Current discussions on this issue resemble the analogous situation that occurred in the late 1990s, when there were theories suggesting that in the next few years almost all settlements would be carried out electronically, cash money would disappear, physical branches of banks would disappear, e-commerce would dominate most industries, etc. However, this did not happen. Cash money still exists, physical branches of banks and employed people as customer advisers also. In view of the above, I believe that artificial intelligence should not completely dominate education processes. It should not replace a teacher man. Even if in a few years autonomous robots equipped with artificial intelligence will be built, which will be able to act as teachers, however, such a degree of technologization of education processes will not occur. It is not only about the risk of artificial intelligence getting out of man's control, i.e. the risk already known from futurological visions inscribed in the background of the plot of many novels and movies from the science fiction genre. The key issues are social and human aspects, including emotional intelligence, empathy, human feelings, creativity, etc., which artificial intelligence will never have, may possibly only imitate these issues, imitate if it is entered into the software. In view of the above, I believe that artificial intelligence, despite technical possibilities, will not dominate education processes.
Regards
Dariusz Prokopowicz
I do not think so. But the future is only intuitive, not knowing what will happen in the future is one of the hardships of the human being.
The use of AI does not utilize emotional aspect. With this, it has no potential of replacing expert teachers.
Hi everyone,
i think that no intelligent machine can replace natural skills of a human being. For teaching job, it needs more other typically human gifts than the intelligency.
"The Ghost in the Machine"
It's not ironic that AI fiction invokes the term as an aphorism. Cartesian dualism enables the anastasis required of AI - to take the ghost in the machine out and put it in a machine. The term Teacher need not be defined merely as human, however, the content of the teaching will always be accountable to humans. That is unless you believe in ghosts.
Generally speaking, I don't think so. But to be specific, artificial Intelligence can be useful for the education process in the teaching of specific subjects within specific disciplines. Therefore, I think that the question should be more specific by defining the nature of what to presented by the teacher and received by the student. We know that there are many and diverse educational objectives which extend to include the Cognitive Objectives that deal with knowledge such as comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Also, we have the Affective Objectives that deal with attitudes such as receiving, responding, valuing organization and characterization. In addition to the Psychmotor Objectives that deal with skills such as perception. acting, responding, adaptation and origination. Accordingly, we have have to think about and define the relevance of AI for all of these items separately to be able to reach an objective answer.
Can a student be replaced using AI? When we think about it some universities are no longer hiring professors but are hiring evaluators (of course we probably all feel that goes to show the integrity of the programs and school). I am worried about this. Are we teaching students to memorize and only remember for a short while? Or are we teaching them how to learn and think? Instructors/professors are important/valuable and are not replaceable? At least I hope we are and aren't (respectively).
Hello,
iam a former university teacher of literature and media analysis. Therefore i know the history of speech and of immateriality.I think you don´t have to write on papyrii,
but your direct speech is useful to go beyond information speech, and this is what you talk about in the media.
I agree with all those thinking that AI is just good and helpful teaching aid arguing teaching process is per se humanistic and should stay that way. This presumes deeper discussion than simply answering a question.
In some fields it could be useful and necessary such as the course of Robotics on our University where female Robot Pepper does exercises with students.
You can read more about its presentation on the following link
https://www.total-croatia-news.com/lifestyle/31359-female-robot-pepper-is-main-attraction-of-european-researchers-night-in-pula
and you can see the Robot on this one
https://www.glasistre.hr/pula/robotica-pepper-gradanka-sam-tehnoloskog-svijeta-mogu-raditi-s-djecom-i-pokazati-im-nove-tehnologije-573190
There are possibly three ways of looking at things: looking at the past, (what "happened historically"), looking at the present, (here and now, with our own certainties or at least beliefs) and what may happen in the future ( which will be a history day). Everything seems to influence the essentiality of how to best organize the world in which we live. And here arises the scale of values, possible options, selective criteria, and ethical arguments for alternatives ...
The continuous search for references seems accurate; reference to the past, the present, and projections into the future. Let us hope that the criterion of applied reason, of humanism, always dominates, that is, it tries to put being at the center of the processes. The end (we know that) does not justify the means; and, likewise, the means must be adapted to the real and concrete concept of each being as a corporeality that feels.
AI can be applied more than this scenario. It can be used for assisting in teaching process, However, AI can be fully applied to automate the medical systems, e-commerce, intelligent transportation systems, robotics, etc.
My academic background is in (1) cognitive psychology, emphasis on human perception, and (2) software engineering. For insight into my academic work, see my blog: www.bioperipatetic.com which consists of a series of papers on the topics of reductionism, emergence theory, and the philosophy of science (especially the science of biology).
AI (Artificial Intelligence) presupposes a definition of intelligence. I hold that intelligence represents the power of the mind (esp. the human mind) to grasp complex facts of existence through perceptual and conceptual processes. The key conceptual processes being deduction and induction.
Artificial (in this context) means 'can be simulated by a software system'. All software is algorithmic, and therefore can be represented as a deterministic mathematical formalism. Therefore, the onus of proof is on the AI engineer to prove that the algorithm is essentially equivalent to human induction and/or deduction in the case (invention and/or application) under study.
It has never been proven, only arbitrarily assumed, that the processes of the mind are mechanistic and reductionistic. This is a deep question that the reader must research to his/her satisfaction. Hint: be sure to research the rebirth of the concepts and principles underlying the phenomenon of emergence. An excellent start on this topic is the recently published book by @Mariusz Tabaczek entitled 'Emergence: Toward a New Metaphysic and Philosophy of Science'. Tabaczek's writings can be found here in ResearchGate.
In my view, AI, which is a form of computer automation, can only be applied to ontological activities that are provably algorithmic, and therefore deterministic. However, it is, again, the onus of the AI engineer to prove that a given form of human intelligence is mechanistically reducible to a mathematical algorithm, implementable through AI technology. It is not sufficient to prove that the AI technology is 'useful' or 'analogous to cognition'. The mind may discover (via induction) that an external process (such as a board game) can be fully realized as a software algorithm, but the reverse is never provable, that a given realization of a software algorithm is reducible to a corresponding mental process (deductive or otherwise).
I understand that there is much to study and integrate before we can arrive an a complete understanding of AI vs human intelligence. I am only pointing a way (not necessary the only way) to approach this deep philosophical (ontological/epistemological) problem.
Philosophy is a precondition and foundation for philosophy of science, which is in turn a precondition for applied sciences of engineering, which include engineering of natural human biological and psychological processes. There is nothing easy here. Let's do the mandatory intellectual (philosophical) and experimental (empirical and scientific) work and see where that leads us in this quest to understand AI.
Interesting question and replies.
I believe that humans will always be necessary, in spite of any technological achievements. Sure, the role of the teacher will change, but not abolished.
I wish I could cite resources revealing that even there were similar thoughts and reactions, even when the first book was published.
No. I don't think so. The cold and frigid machines cannot replace the warmth of a human being
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Mental Processes
- Learning