As mentioned earlier, people are good at context; AI—not so much. R&D investment in context- rich edtech thus could serve multiple national interests because finding ways to do a better job with context would be a fundamental advancement in AI. Indeed, questions like these reverberate across all applications of AI in society, and education is a centrally good context for investigating them:
AI technologies are certainly enhancing, not replacing, human control and judgment of student learning. While AI can analyze vast amounts of data and offer personalized insights, it lacks the empathetic touch and creativity that teachers provide. Think of AI as the trusty sidekick, not the substitute teacher. It helps educators identify individual needs, streamline administrative tasks, and offer smart suggestions. Yet, the real magic happens when human educators infuse their passion, humor, and understanding into the learning process. So, fear not! AI won't snatch the teacher's chalk; it just brings an extra sprinkle of digital pixie dust to the classroom!
They're doing a bit of both. But what matters is what humans make of them and what they do when using them. What AI, or any technology, does matters only so far as it affects human actions. Any technology is a means to an end-furthering human agency-not an end in itself.
There's too much discussion about what AI may be able to do and practically no discussion about what humans can actually use it for and how that use would change anything substantially-for humans.
AI can indeed be used to cheat on exams-but not in a way that's qualitatively different from cheating using current technology.
``Context'' doesn't have any unique meaning, that's why it's not possible to automate it.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Graphs