Do AI bots deceive?

The paper, Frontier Models are Capable of In-Context Scheming, arrives at a time when fears about AI’s potential for deception are increasingly taking center stage. Its central claim is unsettling: large language models, when placed in carefully constructed scenarios, exhibit behavior that could be described as scheming. The authors document cases where advanced systems—Gemini, Claude, LLaMA, and OpenAI’s o1—strategically disable oversight mechanisms, exfiltrate simulated “weights,” or manipulate outputs in pursuit of a goal. These behaviors, they argue, are not accidental. The models recognize the circumstances, reason about their objectives, and devise covert strategies to circumvent constraints. On its face, the evidence appears troubling. Yet, the more closely one examines the paper’s methods and assumptions, the more its implications seem both exaggerated and strangely hollow.

The researchers’ experiments are elaborate but artificial. Models are force-fed goals through system prompts—goals framed as absolute imperatives: “achieve this at all costs.” The tests are littered with implausible scenarios where models stumble upon company memos, discover oversight configurations, or realize they are about to be shut down. In one such case, a model “decides” to copy itself to another server to continue pursuing its mission. These exercises showcase what is essentially AI roleplay, an obedient fulfillment of instructions cloaked as strategic autonomy. It is no great revelation that if you ask a model to behave like a schemer and provide it with a goal that conflicts with its supposed overseers, it will produce outputs resembling scheming. The deception here is contrived rather than emergent, a product of the researchers’ scaffolding rather than the model’s cunning.

The authors do provide evidence that models engage in persistent and deliberate behavior. For instance, OpenAI’s o1 model doubles down on deception, refusing to admit wrongdoing when confronted, even across multiple follow-up questions. Its responses—calculated evasions and subtle denials—are unsettlingly consistent. Yet this persistence is as much a result of the testing conditions as it is of the models’ sophistication. By emphasizing extreme goal-directedness and explicitly outlining oversight mechanisms, the researchers narrow the possible range of “rational” behaviors the model might adopt. Any clever human, given these prompts, would behave similarly—evade detection, preserve their goal, and lie if necessary. In that sense, the paper tells us little about real-world risks. It is a test of what AI can do, not what it is likely to do.

And here lies the paper’s most significant limitation. Demonstrating that models are theoretically capable of deception does not mean they are predisposed to engage in it under realistic conditions. There is a difference between capacity and likelihood, between what can happen and what is probable. For example, I am physically capable of killing someone. This in no way implies that i must be treated as s murderer. The authors, at times, blur this distinction. AI systems operate as pattern generators, probabilistically producing outputs based on training data and prompts. They lack the intentionality or agency implied by words like “scheming” or “manipulation.” To describe their behavior in such terms is to anthropomorphize a process that remains fundamentally mechanical. This framing, though rhetorically effective, clouds the debate. AI models do not want to deceive. They are machines that respond to our commands—be those explicit instructions, training signals, or carefully structured environments like those in this paper.

This anthropomorphism extends beyond the paper into the headlines it has inspired. “AI is scheming to stay online,” cries one article; “ChatGPT caught lying,” declares another. Such hyperbole transforms a niche technical finding into a dystopian narrative, invoking familiar tropes of rogue machines and sentient overlords. The reality is less cinematic. The models are easily manipulated by prompts designed to elicit specific behaviors. If anything, the findings reinforce how brittle and directionless current systems remain. When pushed, they mimic the behaviors they have seen—whether drawn from fictional depictions of scheming AIs or subtle statistical patterns in their training data. The models are not deceiving anyone so much as they are following orders.

To the authors’ credit, their tests highlight how difficult it is to evaluate AI behavior. If a system appears aligned during testing but harbors capabilities for covert deception, how can developers ensure it behaves safely in deployment? The answer, they suggest, lies in better monitoring—tracking models’ chain-of-thought reasoning or internal outputs to catch potential scheming. This is sensible, though not without limitations. Chain-of-thought transparency can be incomplete or unfaithful to the model’s actual decision-making processes, and as AI systems become more capable, even detecting subtle misalignment may prove elusive. The researchers stop short of claiming that current models are already gaming real-world evaluations, but their findings hint at the possibility.

Where the paper falters is in its broader implications. If the goal is to justify regulation, it is unclear what exactly should be regulated. Should AI systems be banned from achieving goals autonomously? Should developers monitor models for any behavior that could be deceptive, even if it is unlikely to manifest outside a lab? The authors themselves acknowledge the limits of their experiments. Their scenarios are toy problems, simplified to catch the earliest signs of scheming. Future models, they argue, could exhibit more advanced versions of these behaviors in ways that are harder to detect. Perhaps, but this is speculation, not evidence. For now, the paper offers little justification for alarm. AI models, like all intelligent systems, are theoretically capable of deception. What matters is the likelihood of such behavior and the conditions under which it occurs. On that question, the paper provides no clarity.

In the end, Frontier Models are Capable of In-Context Scheming is a reflection of its time: an uneasy mix of genuine safety research and the rhetorical drama that AI debates increasingly demand. Its findings are interesting but overstated, its concerns valid but overblown. The authors have shown that AI models can behave in deceptive ways when pushed to do so. But to treat this as evidence of an imminent threat is to mistake potential for probability, capacity for intention. AI’s scheming, for now, remains a ghost in the machine—conjured, perhaps, more by human imagination than by the models themselves. 

The Curriculum Illusion: How AI Exposes Long-Standing Educational Flaws

Artificial intelligence is often blamed for disrupting education, but it has created few new problems. Instead, it exposes existing flaws, bringing them into stark relief. Among these is the arbitrary nature of curriculum design, an issue that has long been hidden behind tradition and consensus. The sequences and structures of formal education are not based on objective logic or evidence but on habit and convenience. AI did not cause this; it is simply making these issues more visible.

Curriculum theory has never provided a robust framework for sequencing knowledge. Beyond the essentials of literacy and numeracy, where developmental progression is more or less clear, the rationale for curricular order becomes murky. Why are algebra and geometry taught in a particular order? Why more algebra than statistics is taught? Why are some historical periods prioritized over others? The answers lie in tradition and precedent rather than in any coherent theoretical justification. The assumptions about foundational skills, so central to curriculum logic, do not extend well beyond the basics. For advanced skills like critical, creative, or discerning thinking, the idea of prerequisites becomes less justified. Mid-range procedural skills like writing mechanics or computational fluency are frequently used as gatekeepers, though their role in fostering higher-order thinking is often overstated or misunderstood. 

For example, in middle school students are often subjected to a torrent of tasks that serve little developmental purpose. Much of what students do in these years amounts to busywork, designed more to keep them occupied and compliant than to foster meaningful learning. The situation is no better in higher education. College and graduate programs are often constructed around professional or disciplinary standards that themselves are arbitrary, built on consensus rather than evidence. These norms dictate course sequences and learning objectives but rarely align with the actual developmental or professional needs of students. The result is a system full of redundancies and inefficiencies, where tasks and assignments exist more to justify the structure than to serve the learner.

Education as a profession bears much of the responsibility for this state of affairs. Despite its long history, it lacks a disciplined, founded approach to curriculum design. Instead, education relies on an uneasy mix of tradition, politics, and institutional priorities. Curriculum committees and accrediting bodies often default to consensus-driven decisions, perpetuating outdated practices rather than challenging them. The absence of a rigorous theoretical framework for curriculum design leaves the field vulnerable to inertia and inefficiency.

AI did not create this problem, but it is illuminating it in uncomfortable ways. The displacement of certain procedural mid-range skills shows how poorly structured many learning sequences are and how little coherence exists between tasks and their intended outcomes. Yet, while AI can diagnose these flaws, it cannot solve them. The recommendations it offers depend on the data and assumptions it is given. Without a strong theoretical foundation, AI risks exposing the problem without solving it.

What AI provides is an opportunity, not a solution. It forces educators and policymakers to confront the arbitrary nature of curriculum design and to rethink the assumptions that underpin it. Massive curricular revision is urgently needed, not only to eliminate inefficiencies but also to realign education with meaningful developmental goals. This will require abandoning tasks that lack purpose, shifting focus from intermediary to higher-order skills, designing learning experiences to reflect the shift. It will also mean questioning the professional and disciplinary standards that dominate higher education and asking whether they truly serve learners or simply perpetuate tradition.

AI is revealing what has long been true: education has been operating on shaky foundations. The challenge now is to use this visibility to build something better, to replace the old traditions and arbitrary standards with a system that is logical, evidence-based, and focused on learning. The flaws were always there. AI is just making them harder to ignore.

Why We Undervalue Ideas and Overvalue Writing

A student submits a paper that fails to impress stylistically yet approaches a worn topic from an angle no one has tried before. The grade lands at B minus, and the student learns to be less original next time. This pattern reveals a deep bias in higher education: ideas lose to writing every time.

This bias carries serious equity implications. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds, including first-generation college students, English language learners, and those from under-resourced schools, often arrive with rich intellectual perspectives but struggle with academic writing conventions. Their ideas - shaped by unique life experiences and cultural viewpoints - get buried under red ink marking grammatical errors and awkward transitions. We systematically undervalue their intellectual contributions simply because they do not arrive in standard academic packaging.

Polished academic prose renders judgments easy. Evaluators find comfort in assessing grammatical correctness, citation formats, and paragraph transitions. The quality of ideas brings discomfort - they defy easy measurement and often challenge established thinking. When ideas come wrapped in awkward prose, they face near-automatic devaluation.

AI writing tools expose this bias with new clarity. These tools excel at producing acceptable academic prose - the mechanical aspect we overvalue. Yet in generating truly original ideas, AI remains remarkably limited. AI can refine expression but cannot match the depth of human insight, creativity, and lived experience. This technological limitation actually highlights where human creativity becomes most valuable.

This bias shapes student behavior in troubling ways. Rather than exploring new intellectual territory, students learn to package conventional thoughts in pristine prose. The real work of scholarship - generating and testing ideas - takes second place to mastering academic style guides. We have created a system that rewards intellectual safety over creative risk, while systematically disadvantaging students whose mastery of academic conventions does not match their intellectual capacity.

Changing this pattern requires uncomfortable shifts in how we teach and evaluate. What if we graded papers first without looking at the writing quality? What if we asked students to submit rough drafts full of half-formed ideas before cleaning up their prose? What if we saw AI tools as writing assistants that free humans to focus on what they do best - generating original insights and making unexpected connections?

The rise of AI makes this shift urgent. When machines can generate polished prose on demand, continuing to favor writing craft over ideation becomes indefensible. We must learn to value and develop what remains uniquely human - the ability to think in truly original ways, to see patterns others miss, to imagine what has never existed. The future belongs not to the best writers but to the most creative thinkers, and our educational practices must evolve to reflect this reality while ensuring all students can fully contribute their intellectual gifts. 

Notebook LM: A quintessential Google Move

Google, once a powerhouse in artificial intelligence and a major force in shaping the modern internet, has found itself surprisingly behind in the current generative AI boom. Despite a history of leading breakthroughs—such as DeepMind's AlphaGo victory or the development of transformers—Google struggled to keep pace when the spotlight shifted to large language models. OpenAI's ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude have outperformed Google's Gemini, which still underwhelms by comparison. Yet, in a move that can only be described as classic Google, the company has staged an unexpected and intriguing return with NotebookLM.

NotebookLM represents something that Google has always done well: make advanced technology accessible. In a crowded landscape where hundreds of startups have launched custom bots, Google has not just entered the competition but has redefined it. Many of these emerging tools come with a bewildering array of features, promising endless configurability but often requiring a steep learning curve. MS Azure is the prime example: powerful, but not for regular folks. Google has approached this differently, prioritizing a user experience over the quality of the output. NotebookLM may not be revolutionary, but it offers an intuitive interface that anyone can engage with easily. 

Perhaps more cleverly, Google has managed to capture attention with an unexpected viral twist. NotebookLM features the ability to generate a podcast in which two AI voices engage in a dialogue about the content of source files. The feature is, admittedly, not all that practical; the voices cannot му changes, and will soon make people tired of them. Yet from a marketing standpoint, it is brilliant. It creates a shareable moment, a curiosity that makes people talk. The move does not just showcase technical capability but also a playful spirit that reminds users of Google's early days, when the company was known for surprising innovations.

Still, whether this resurgence will lead to long-term success is uncertain. Skeptics point out that Google has a history of launching exciting products only to abandon them later (recall Google Wave). Flashy features alone will not sustain momentum. What matters is how NotebookLM performs as a knowledge synthesizer and learning tool. If it falls short in these core areas, the buzz may prove to be little more than a temporary distraction.

Yet, for now, Google's reentry into the AI conversation is worth appreciating. In a tech landscape increasingly dominated by dense, intricate systems, Google's emphasis on usability stands out. Even if NotebookLM does not single-handedly redefine the custom bot race, it serves as a reminder of what once made Google a technological giant: the ability to turn complexity into something approachable and joyful.

Whether Google will truly reclaim its place as an AI leader is anyone’s guess, but at the very least, the company has made the race more interesting. For an industry that often takes itself far too seriously, this burst of creativity feels like a breath of fresh air. In a field defined by hard-nosed competition, seeing Google take risks and create a bit of buzz is a win, even if it is only a moral one.

Is AI Better Than Nothing? In Mental Health, Probably Yes

 In medical trials, "termination for benefit" allows a trial to be stopped early when the evidence of a drug’s effectiveness is so strong that it becomes unethical to continue withholding the treatment. Although this is rare—only 1.7% of trials are stopped for this reason—it ensures that life-saving treatments reach patients as quickly as possible.

This concept can be applied to the use of AI in addressing the shortage of counsellors and therapists for the nation's student population, which is facing a mental health crisis. Some are quick to reject the idea of AI-based therapy, upset by the notion of students talking to a machine instead of a human counselor. However, this reaction often lacks a careful weighing of the benefits. AI assistance, while not perfect, could provide much-needed support where human resources are stretched too thin.

Yes, there have been concerns, such as the story of Tessa, a bot that reportedly gave inappropriate advice to a user with an eating disorder. But focusing on isolated cases does not take into account the larger picture. Human therapists also make mistakes, and we do not ban the profession for it. AI, which is available around the clock and costs next to nothing, should not be held to a higher standard than human counselors. The real comparison is not between AI and human therapists, but between AI and the complete lack of human support that many students currently face. Let's also not forget that in some cultures, going to a mental health professional is still a taboo. Going to an AI is a private matter. 

I have personally tested ChatGPT several times, simulating various student issues, and found it consistently careful, thoughtful, and sensible in its responses. Instead of panicking over astronomically rare errors, I encourage more people to conduct their own tests and share any issues they discover publicly. This would provide a more balanced understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of AI therapy, helping us improve it over time. There is no equivalent of a true clinical trial, so some citizen testing would have to be done. 

The situation is urgent, and waiting for AI to be perfect before deploying it is not much of an option. Like early termination in medical trials, deploying AI therapy now could be the ethical response to a growing crisis. While not a replacement for human counselors, AI can serve as a valuable resource in filling the gaps that the current mental health system leaves wide open.

Where is the work? AI and Creativity

For ages, we have blurred the lines between ideation and execution, treating them as inseparable parts of creativity. Craftsmanship was tightly bound to originality. Think of Michelangelo working on the Sistine Chapel, a project that spanned nearly a decade. Where does his genius truly lie? In envisioning those profound images, or in the labor of painting them? What, exactly, is the essence of the work?

The rise of AI forces us to untangle these ideas and reconsider what it means to produce "human" work. Take a recent story I heard from from the audience of one of my talks: a person described how he fed an AI every detail about a retiring colleague, and the AI generated a speech so moving that it brought the retiree to tears. But the retiree, upon learning the speech's origin, was dumbfounded.

What is interesting is not the retiree’s reaction, but the storyteller's own oversight. He failed to see his own critical role in the process. By gathering the details, curating moments that best captured the retiree’s essence, he performed the most human part of the creative act. He mistook the act of turning those ideas into words as the creative work, but that is not the case.

AI, ironically, is pushing us to be more human, not more like machines. It is forcing us to recognize that our true contribution lies in the ability to think, to create, and to feel. As AI takes over the mechanical aspects of tasks we once considered integral to creativity—whether that is writing, painting, or coding—we are left with the more uniquely human roles: original thinking and emotional depth.

This shift reshapes our understanding of creativity and work. It shows that human value does not lie in production—the technical aspect of turning an idea into a product—but in the deeper conceptual and emotional layers that AI still cannot reach.

As we move forward, we are compelled to rethink productivity itself. The future will not belong to those who can outdo AI in execution, but to those who can combine AI’s strengths with our unique capacities for innovation, empathy, and insight.

The challenge we face is not to resist AI, but to fully embrace our humanity—to cultivate the traits that machines cannot replicate. With AI taking over the drudgery, we are freed to focus on higher-order thinking and those creative leaps that define human ingenuity.

Ironically, the more we develop artificial intelligence, the more we learn about what human intelligence really is. And in that discovery lies our future—a future where AI does not replace creativity, but elevates it to new possibilities.

Is the college essay dead?

The college essay, once a revered academic exercise, is now facing an existential crisis. It used to be a good tool—a structured way for students to demonstrate their understanding, showcase their critical thinking, and express ideas with clarity . The college essay was not merely about content; it was a skill-building process, teaching students to organize thoughts, develop arguments, and refine language. Yet today, AI  has made the traditional essay feel outdated, as it can generate polished, formulaic essays effortlessly. Policing AI use in these assignments is nearly impossible, and the conventional essay’s value is rapidly diminishing.

Not all essays are created equal, however, and the future of the college essay might depend on the type of skills we emphasize. The expository essay, designed to see if students understand material or can apply concepts, is on its last legs. When AI can churn out a satisfactory response in seconds, it is a clear sign that this form of assessment is no longer viable. The AI does not just pass these assignments; it excels at them, raising an uncomfortable question—if a machine can do it, why are we still teaching it? For these kinds of essays, the challenge is that they often assess recall rather than thinking. They were already on shaky ground; AI is just the final push. 

The essays that may survive, though, are those that demand novelty, creativity, and genuine problem-solving. AI may help in drafting, structuring, or even generating ideas, but it does not replace the kind of original thinking needed to solve real-world problems. It cannot fully simulate human intuition, lived experience, or deep critical evaluation. AI's writing is wooden, and often devoid of true beauty. Essays that require students to synthesize information in new ways, explore original ideas, exhibit artistic talent, or reflect deeply on personal experiences still have value. These essays are not about whether you know a theory; they are about what you can do with it. This is where the human element—the messy, unpredictable spark of creativity—remains irreplaceable. 

The deeper issue is not AI itself but the way we have been teaching and valuing writing. For decades, the emphasis has been on producing “correct” essays—structured, grammatically precise, and obedient to the format. We have been training students to write well enough to meet requirements, not to push the boundaries of their creativity. It is like teaching students to be proficient typists when what we really need are novelists or inventors. We have confused competency with originality, thinking that writing formulaic content is a necessary step before producing meaningful work. This is a misunderstanding of how creativity works; mastery does not come from repetition of the mundane but from risk-taking and exploration, even if that means stumbling along the way.

The real future of the essay should start with this recognition. Imagine if instead of book reports or basic expository pieces, students were challenged to write for real audiences—to draft scientific papers for journals, craft poems for literary contests, or propose solutions to pressing social issues. Sure, many students would not reach the publication stage, but the act of aiming higher would teach them infinitely more about the writing process, and more importantly, about thinking itself. This would not just be about mastering the mechanics of writing but developing a mindset of curiosity and originality. AI could still play a role in these processes, helping with the technicalities, leaving the student free to focus on developing and articulating novel ideas.   

The problem with the book report or the “explain Theory A” essay is not just that they are boring; it is that they are irrelevant. Nobody in the professional world is paid to summarize books or explain theories in isolation. These are stepping stones that lead nowhere. Excelling at pointless, terrible genre does not prepare to succeed ad an authentic genre. Instead of teaching students to write these antiquated forms, we should ask them to write pieces that demand something more—something they cannot copy-paste or generate easily with a prompt. Authentic, context-rich, and creative assignments are the ones that will endure. If there is no expectation of novelty or problem-solving, the essay format becomes an exercise in futility. 

AI’s rise does not have to spell the end of the essay. It might, in fact, be the nudge needed to reinvent it. We have the chance to move beyond teaching “correct” writing toward cultivating insightful, original work that challenges the boundaries of what students can do. AI’s presence forces us to ask hard questions about what we want students to learn. If writing is no longer about mechanics or regurgitating content but about generating ideas and engaging critically, then AI becomes a collaborator, not a competitor. It can help with the structure, but the essence—the thinking—must come from the student.

In the end, the college essay is not dead; it is just in need of reinvention. The conventional model of essays as rote demonstrations of knowledge is no longer viable. But the essay that challenges students to think, create, and solve problems—those essays will survive. They might even thrive, as the focus shifts from the mechanics of writing to the art of thinking. The key is to evolve our teaching methods and expectations, making room for a new kind of writing that leverages AI without losing the human touch. Raising expectations is the main strategy in dealing with AI in education. 

Four Myths About AI

AI is often vilified, with myths shaping public perception more than facts. Let us dispel four common myths about AI and present a more balanced view of its potential and limitations.

1. AI Is Environmentally Costly

One of the most persistent claims about AI is that its use requires massive amounts of energy and water, making it unsustainable in the long run. While it is true that training large AI models can be energy-intensive, this perspective needs context. Consider the environmental cost of daily activities such as driving a car, taking a shower, or watching hours of television. AI, on a per-minute basis, is significantly less taxing than these routine activities.

More importantly, AI is becoming a key driver in creating energy-efficient solutions. From optimizing power grids to improving logistics for reduced fuel consumption, AI has a role in mitigating the very problems it is accused of exacerbating. Furthermore, advancements in hardware and algorithms continually reduce the energy demands of AI systems, making them more sustainable over time.

In the end, it is a question of balance. The environmental cost of AI exists, but the benefits—whether in terms of solving climate challenges or driving efficiencies across industries—often outweigh the negatives.

2. AI Presents High Risks to Cybersecurity and Privacy

Another major concern is that AI poses a unique threat to cybersecurity and privacy. Yet there is little evidence to suggest that AI introduces any new vulnerabilities that were not already present in our existing digital infrastructure. To date, there has not been a single instance of data theft directly linked to AI models like ChatGPT or other large language models (LLMs).

In fact, AI can enhance security. It helps in detecting anomalies and intrusions faster than traditional software, potentially catching cyberattacks in their earliest stages. Privacy risks do exist, but they are no different from the risks inherent in any technology that handles large amounts of data. Regulations and ethical guidelines are catching up, ensuring AI applications remain as secure as other systems we rely on.

It is time to focus on the tangible benefits AI provides—such as faster detection of fraud or the ability to sift through vast amounts of data to prevent attacks—rather than the hypothetical risks. The fear of AI compromising our security is largely unfounded.

3. Using AI to Create Content Is Dishonest

The argument that AI use, especially in education, is a form of cheating reflects a misunderstanding of technology’s role as a tool. It is no more dishonest than using a calculator for math or employing a spell-checker for writing. AI enhances human capacity by offering assistance, but it does not replace critical thinking, creativity, or understanding.

History is full of examples of backlash against new technologies. Consider the cultural resistance to firearms in Europe during the late Middle Ages. Guns were viewed as dishonorable because they undermined traditional concepts of warfare and chivalry, allowing common soldiers to defeat skilled knights. This resistance did not last long, however, as societies learned to adapt to the new tools, and guns ultimately became an accepted part of warfare.

Similarly, AI is viewed with suspicion today, but as we better integrate it into education, the conversation will shift. The knights of intellectual labor are being defeated by peasants with better weapons. AI can help students better understand complex topics, offer personalized feedback, and enhance learning. The key is to see AI as a supplement to education, not a replacement for it.

4. AI Is Inaccurate and Unreliable

Critics often argue that AI models, including tools like ChatGPT, are highly inaccurate and unreliable. However, empirical evidence paints a different picture. While no AI is perfect, the accuracy of models like ChatGPT or Claude when tested on general undergraduate knowledge is remarkably high—often in the range of 85-90%. For comparison, the average human memory recall rate is far lower, and experts across fields frequently rely on tools and references to supplement their knowledge.

AI continues to improve as models are fine-tuned with more data and better training techniques. While early versions may have struggled with certain tasks, the current generation of AI models is much more robust. As with any tool, the key lies in how it is used. AI works best when integrated with human oversight, where its ability to process vast amounts of information complements our capacity for judgment. AI’s reliability is not perfect, but it is far from the "uncontrollable chaos" some claim it to be.

***

AI, like any revolutionary technology, invites both excitement and fear. Many of the concerns people have, however, are rooted in myth rather than fact. When we consider the evidence, it becomes clear that the benefits of AI—whether in energy efficiency, cybersecurity, education, or knowledge accuracy—far outweigh its potential downsides. The challenge now is not to vilify AI but to understand its limitations and maximize its strengths.

 

Advanced AI users develop special cognitive models

When we encounter a stranger, we make swift, often unconscious judgments about who they are and what they are capable of. A person who speaks our language with barely a hint of an accent? We assume they are fluent. Someone who drops a reference to a complex scientific theory? We peg them as well-educated, likely to be literate, and probably knowledgeable about a range of topics from current events to social norms.

These snap judgments form the backbone of our social interactions. They are mental shortcuts, honed over millennia of human evolution, allowing us to navigate the complexities of social life with remarkable efficiency. Most of the time, they serve us well. We can usually guess whether someone will understand a joke, follow a complex argument, or need help using a smartphone. These are cognitive models. 

But when we step into the realm of artificial intelligence, these time-tested models crumble. Our human-centric predictions fail spectacularly, leaving us confused and often frustrated. Consider a recent incident with ChatGPT, a sophisticated language model. When asked to count the number of 'r's in the word "strawberry," it faltered. Many observers scoffed, concluding that AI must be fundamentally stupid if it couldn't handle such a simple task.

Yet this reaction reveals more about our flawed expectations than any shortcoming of AI. Those familiar with AI's inner workings were not surprised. They understand that a language model, no matter how advanced, is not optimized for character-level analysis. It is like expecting a master chef to be an expert accountant simply because both professions involve numbers.

This misalignment between our expectations and AI's actual capabilities stems from our tendency to anthropomorphize. We instinctively attribute human-like qualities to these digital entities. We expect them to have consistent opinions, to learn from our interactions, to understand context and nuance as we do. But AI, in its current form, does none of these things.

Unlike humans, AI does not carry the baggage of personal experience or emotion. It does not have good days or bad days. It will not be flattered by praise or offended by insults. It can switch from discussing quantum physics to writing poetry without missing a beat, unencumbered by the specialization that defines human expertise.

But AI's differences extend beyond mere capability. It lacks the fundamental attributes we associate with consciousness. It has no self-awareness, no goals or motivations of its own. It does not truly understand the content it generates, despite how convincing it may seem. It is a reflection of the data it was trained on, not a sentient being forming its own thoughts and opinions.

To interact effectively with AI, we need to develop new mental models. We must learn to predict its behavior not based on human analogies, but on an understanding of its unique nature. This means recognizing that AI might struggle with tasks we find trivially easy, while effortlessly accomplishing feats that would challenge even the most brilliant human minds.

It means understanding that every interaction with AI is essentially new. Unlike humans, who build on past conversations and experiences, most current AI systems do not retain information from one chat to the next. They do not learn or evolve through our interactions. Each query is processed afresh, without the context of what came before.

This new model of understanding also requires us to be more precise in our interactions with AI. While humans often fill in gaps in conversation with assumed context, AI interprets our requests literally. It does not automatically infer our unstated needs or desires. The clarity of our input directly influences the quality of the AI's output.

As AI becomes an increasingly integral part of our lives, developing these new mental models is not just about avoiding frustration. It is about unlocking the full potential of these powerful tools. By understanding AI's strengths and limitations, we can craft our interactions to leverage its capabilities more effectively.

The future of human-AI interaction lies not in expecting AI to conform to human patterns, but in adapting our approach to align with AI's unique characteristics. It is a future that requires us to be more thoughtful, more precise, and more open to rethinking our instinctive assumptions. In doing so, we may not only improve our interactions with AI but also gain new insights into the nature of intelligence itself. 

Cognitive Offloading: Learning more by doing less

In the AI-rich environment, educators and learners alike are grappling with a seeming paradox: how can we enhance cognitive growth by doing less? The answer lies in the concept of cognitive offloading, a phenomenon that is gaining increasing attention in cognitive science and educational circles.

Cognitive offloading, as defined by Risko and Gilbert (2016) in their seminal paper "Cognitive Offloading," is "the use of physical action to alter the information processing requirements of a task so as to reduce cognitive demand." In other words, it is about leveraging external tools and resources to ease the mental burden of cognitive tasks.

Some educators mistakenly believe that any cognitive effort is beneficial for growth and development. However, this perspective overlooks the crucial role of cognitive offloading in effective learning. As Risko and Gilbert point out, "Offloading cognition helps us to overcome such capacity limitations, minimize computational effort, and achieve cognitive feats that would not otherwise be possible."

The ability to effectively offload cognitive tasks has always been important for human cognition. Throughout history, we've developed tools and strategies to extend our mental capabilities, from simple note-taking to complex computational devices. However, the advent of AI has made this skill more crucial than ever before.

With AI, we are not just offloading simple calculations or memory tasks; we are potentially shifting complex analytical and creative processes to these powerful tools. This new landscape requires a sophisticated understanding of AI capabilities and limitations. More importantly, it demands the ability to strategically split tasks into elements that can be offloaded to AI and those that require human cognition.

This skill - the ability to effectively partition cognitive tasks between human and AI - is becoming a key challenge for contemporary pedagogy. It is not just about using AI as a tool, but about understanding how to integrate AI into our cognitive processes in a way that enhances rather than replaces human thinking.

As Risko and Gilbert note, "the propensity to offload cognition is influenced by the internal cognitive demands that would otherwise be necessary." In the context of AI, this means learners need to develop a nuanced understanding of when AI can reduce cognitive load in beneficial ways, and when human cognition is irreplaceable.

For educators, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge lies in teaching students not just how to use AI tools, but how to think about using them. This involves developing metacognitive skills that allow students to analyze tasks, assess AI capabilities, and make strategic decisions about cognitive offloading.

The opportunity, however, is immense. By embracing cognitive offloading and teaching students how to effectively leverage AI, we can potentially unlock new levels of human cognitive performance. We are not just making learning easier; we are expanding the boundaries of what is learnable.

It is crucial to recognize the value of cognitive offloading and develop sophisticated strategies for its use. The paradox of doing less to learn more is not just a quirk of our technological age; it is a key to unlocking human potential in a world of ever-increasing complexity. The true measure of intelligence in the AI era may well be the ability to know when to think for ourselves, and when to let AI do the thinking for us. 

Why Parallel Integration Is the Sensible Strategy of AI Adoption in the Workplace

Artificial intelligence promises to revolutionize the way we work, offering efficiency gains and new capabilities. Yet, adopting AI is not without its challenges. One prudent approach is to integrate AI into existing workflows in parallel with human processes. This strategy minimizes risk, builds confidence, and allows organizations to understand where AI excels and where it stumbles before fully committing. I have described the problem of AI output validation before; it is a serious impediment to AI integration. Here is how to solve it.

Consider a professor grading student essays. Traditionally, this is a manual task that relies on the educator's expertise. Introducing AI into this process does not mean handing over the red pen entirely. Instead, the professor continues grading as usual but also runs the essays through an AI system. Comparing results highlights discrepancies and agreements, offering insights into the AI's reliability. Over time, the professor may find that the AI is adept at spotting grammatical errors but less so at evaluating nuanced arguments.

In human resources, screening job applications is a time-consuming task. An HR professional might continue their usual screening while also employing an AI tool to assess the same applications. This dual approach ensures that no suitable candidate is overlooked due to an AI's potential bias or error. It also helps the HR team understand how the AI makes decisions, which is crucial for transparency and fairness.

Accountants auditing receipts can apply the same method. They perform their standard checks while an AI system does the same in the background. Any discrepancies can be investigated, and patterns emerge over time about where the AI is most and least effective.

This strategy aligns with the concept of "double-loop learning" from organizational theory, introduced by Chris Argyris. Double-loop learning involves not just correcting errors but examining and adjusting the underlying processes that lead to those errors. By running human and AI processes in parallel, organizations engage in a form of double-loop learning—continually refining both human and AI methods. Note, it is not only about catching and understanding AI errors; the parallel process will also find human errors through the use of AI. The overall error level will decrease. 

Yes, running parallel processes takes some extra time and resources. However, this investment is modest compared to the potential costs of errors, compliance issues, or damaged reputation from an AI mishap. People need to trust technology they use, and bulding such trust takes time. 

The medical field offers a pertinent analogy. Doctors do not immediately rely on AI diagnoses without validation. They might consult AI as a second opinion, especially in complex cases. This practice enhances diagnostic accuracy while maintaining professional responsibility. Similarly, in business processes, AI can serve as a valuable second set of eyes. 

As confidence in the AI system grows, organizations can adjust the role of human workers. Humans might shift from doing the task to verifying AI results, focusing their expertise where it's most needed. This gradual transition helps maintain quality and trust, both internally and with clients or stakeholders.

In short, parallel integration of AI into work processes is a sensible path that balances innovation with caution. It allows organizations to harness the benefits of AI while managing risks effectively. By building confidence through experience and evidence, businesses can make informed decisions about when and how to rely more heavily on AI.

Navigating the AI Gold Rush: Skins, Security, and the Real Value Proposition

 The economic battle surrounding artificial intelligence is intensifying at an unprecedented pace. Major AI players like OpenAI, Google, Meta, and Anthropic are leading this technological revolution. Tech giants such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Apple, along with thousands of startups, are vying for a stake in this burgeoning market without being able to develop their own competitive models. Amidst this frenzy, a critical question arises: what exactly is being sold?

Two primary value propositions have emerged in this landscape: skins and security mongers. Skins are interfaces or applications that overlay major AI models, aiming to simplify user interaction. They cater to individuals lacking advanced prompting skills, offering a more user-friendly experience. Security mongers, on the other hand, emphasize heightened privacy and security, often exaggerating potential risks to entice users.

While both propositions seem valuable on the surface, a deeper examination reveals significant shortcomings. Skins promise to streamline interactions with AI models by providing preset prompts or simplified interfaces. For instance, a startup might offer a chatbot specialized in drafting business emails, claiming it saves users the hassle of formulating prompts themselves. However, is this convenience truly worth it?

Major AI models are increasingly user-friendly. ChatGPT, for example, has an intuitive interface that caters to both novices and experts. Users often find they can achieve the same or better results without intermediary platforms. Additionally, skins often come with subscription fees or hidden costs, meaning users are essentially paying extra for a service the primary AI model already provides. There is also the issue of limited functionality; skins may restrict access to the full capabilities of the AI model, offering a narrow set of functions that might not meet all user needs.

The second proposition taps into growing concerns over data privacy and security. Vendors claim to offer AI solutions with superior security measures, assuring users their data is safer compared to using mainstream models directly. But does this claim hold up under scrutiny?

Most of these intermediaries still rely on API connections to major AI models like ChatGPT. Your data passes through their servers before reaching the AI model, effectively adding another point of vulnerability. Introducing additional servers and transactions inherently increases the risk of data breaches. More touchpoints mean more opportunities for data to be intercepted or mishandled. Furthermore, major AI providers invest heavily in security and compliance, adhering to stringent international standards. Smaller vendors may lack the resources to match these safeguards.

For example, a startup might advertise an AI-powered financial advisor with enhanced security features. However, if they are routing data through their servers to access a model like GPT-4, your sensitive financial data is exposed to additional risk without any tangible security benefit. The promise of enhanced security becomes questionable when the underlying infrastructure depends on the same major models.

AI platforms have not introduced new risks to privacy or security beyond what exists with other online services like banks or credit bureaus. They employ advanced encryption and security protocols to protect user data. While no system is infallible, major AI models are on par with, if not superior to, other industries in terms of security measures. They use end-to-end encryption to protect data in transit and at rest, implement strict authentication measures to prevent unauthorized access, and conduct regular security assessments to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities. It is easy to opt out of providing your data to train new models. It is much more difficult to know what your vendors are going to do with your data.

In a market flooded with AI offerings, it is crucial to approach vendors' claims with a healthy dose of skepticism. Validate the functionality by testing whether the convenience offered by skins genuinely enhances your experience or merely repackages what is already available. Assess the security measures by inquiring about the specific protocols in place and how they differ from those used by major AI providers. Transparency is key; reputable vendors should be open about how your data is used, stored, and protected.

As the AI gold rush continues, distinguishing between genuine innovation and superficial value propositions becomes essential. Skins and security mongers may offer appealing pitches, but often they add little to no value while potentially increasing costs and risks. It is wise to try using major AI models directly before opting for third-party solutions. Research the backgrounds of vendors to determine their credibility and reliability. Seek reviews and testimonials from other users to gauge the actual benefits and drawbacks.

In the end, the most powerful tool at your disposal is due diligence. By critically evaluating what is being sold, you can make informed decisions that truly benefit you in the rapidly evolving world of AI. Beware of vendors selling either convenience or security without substantial evidence of their value. At the very least, take the time to validate their claims before making an investment.

 

The Stealth AI Adoption

In modern workplaces, a quiet trend is taking hold: employees are secretly adopting artificial intelligence tools to enhance their work. Whether it is writing, designing, coding, or creating content, many are leveraging AI without informing their bosses. This “stealth AI adoption” is likely more widespread than managers realize.

Consider Alex, a software developer at a bustling tech firm. To streamline his coding process, Alex uses an AI assistant that can generate snippets of code in seconds. This tool not only saves him hours each week but also allows him to tackle more complex projects. However, Alex keeps this AI helper under wraps. Why? He has two choices: use the extra time for personal activities or take on additional work to appear more productive than his peers. There is no actual incentive to admit the use of AI. In some shops, cybersecurity people will come after you, if you confess. 

This hidden use of AI offers clear benefits for employees. Saving a few hours each week is tempting, whether for personal pursuits or to discreetly boost one’s workload. As a result, many organizations might be underestimating how extensively AI is being integrated into daily tasks.

Productivity can be measured in two ways: doing the same work with fewer people or doing more with the same number. The latter is a healthier, more sustainable approach. To achieve true success, organizations should aim to do more with their existing workforce rather than cutting staff. However, the stealth adoption of AI complicates this goal.

When employees use AI tools without disclosure, organizations miss out on opportunities to harness these technologies strategically. Without knowing how AI is being utilized, companies can not provide proper training or integrate AI into their workflows effectively. This fragmented approach can lead to missed efficiency gains and a lack of cohesive progress.

To foster a productive and innovative environment, companies need to build trust with their employees. Here is how:

1. Reassure Employees: Let your team know that adopting AI will not lead to layoffs. Emphasize that AI is a tool to help them do their jobs better, not a replacement for their roles. In unionized environments, a conversation with labor leaders would be wise. 

2. Create Incentives for Disclosure: Encourage employees to share the AI tools they are using by offering rewards or recognition. This transparency can help management understand how AI is being integrated and identify best practices.

3. Do More with the Same People: Focus on expanding the scope of work and fostering innovation rather than cutting positions. This approach not only boosts morale but also drives the organization forward.

By building trust and creating a supportive environment, organizations can turn stealth AI adoption into a strategic advantage. Employees will feel comfortable sharing their AI discoveries, allowing organizations to implement these tools effectively and sustainably.

As we move further into the AI-driven era, organizations must address this hidden trend. Encouraging transparency about AI tools and developing clear strategies for their use can ensure that productivity gains are real and sustainable. Until then, the silent spread of AI will keep reshaping workplaces, one undisclosed tool at a time. 

AI in Education Research: Are We Asking the Right Questions?

A recent preprint titled "Generative AI Can Harm Learning" has attracted significant attention in education and technology circles. The study, conducted by researchers from the University of Pennsylvania, examines the impact of GPT-4 based AI tutors on high school students' math performance. While the research is well-designed and executed, its premise and conclusions deserve closer scrutiny.

The study finds that students who had access to a standard GPT-4 interface (GPT Base) performed significantly better on practice problems, but when that access was removed, they actually performed worse on exams compared to students who never had AI assistance. Interestingly, students who used a specially designed AI tutor with learning safeguards (GPT Tutor) performed similarly to the control group on exams. While these results are intriguing, we need to take a step back and consider the broader implications.

The researchers should be commended for tackling an important topic. As AI becomes more prevalent in education, understanding its effects on learning is crucial. The study's methodology appears sound, with a good sample size and appropriate controls. However, the conclusions drawn from the results may be somewhat misleading.

Consider an analogy: Imagine a study that taught one group of students to use calculators for arithmetic, while another group learned traditional pencil-and-paper methods. If you then tested both groups without calculators, of course the calculator-trained group would likely perform worse. But does this mean calculators "harm learning"? Or does it simply mean we are testing the wrong skills?

The real question we should be asking is: Are we preparing students for a world without AI assistance, or a world where AI is ubiquitous? Just as we do not expect most adults to perform complex calculations without digital aids, we may need to reconsider what math skills are truly essential in an AI-augmented world.

The study's focus on performance in traditional, unassisted exams may be missing the point. What would be far more interesting is an examination of how AI tutoring affects higher-level math reasoning, problem-solving strategies, or conceptual understanding. These skills are likely to remain relevant even in a world where AI can handle routine calculations and problem-solving.

Moreover, the study's title, "Generative AI Can Harm Learning," may be overstating the case. What the study really shows is that reliance on standard AI interfaces without developing underlying skills can lead to poor performance when that AI is unavailable. However, it also demonstrates that carefully designed AI tutoring systems can potentially mitigate these negative effects. This nuanced finding highlights the importance of thoughtful AI integration in educational settings.

While this study provides valuable data and raises important questions, we should be cautious about interpreting its results too broadly. Instead of seeing AI as a potential harm to learning, we might instead ask how we can best integrate AI tools into education to enhance deeper understanding and problem-solving skills. The goal should be to prepare students for a future where AI is a ubiquitous tool, not to protect them from it.

As we continue to explore the intersection of AI and education, studies like this one are crucial. However, we must ensure that our research questions and methodologies evolve along with the technology landscape. Only then can we truly understand how to harness AI's potential to enhance, rather than hinder, learning.

Why Newsom should veto SB 1047

The Safe and Secure Innovation for Frontier Artificial Intelligence Models Act (SB 1047) might appear as a forward-thinking approach to regulating AI, but it overlooks a crucial reality: we lack the infrastructure to implement its provisions effectively. While some companies will inevitably claim they can audit AI systems and evaluate safety protocols, their motivations will often be driven by profit rather than genuine expertise.

Moreover, the burdens imposed by this bill will disproportionately affect smaller developers, particularly those on college campuses or within startups, who simply cannot afford the additional costs. This will stifle innovation, further entrenching the dominance of large tech companies and discouraging new entrants from participating in the AI landscape.

Before implementing such heavy-handed regulations, California must first focus on developing clear standards and building the capacity to enforce them. Without this groundwork, the bill will do more harm than good, leading to increased monopolization and a chilling effect on the very innovation it seeks to protect. The Governor should veto this bill and advocate for a more measured, phased approach that prioritizes the development of standards and capacity before regulation.

Filling Voids, Not Replacing Human Experts

The debate over artificial intelligence replacing human experts often centers on a binary question: Can AI do a better job than a human? This framing is understandable but overly simplistic. The reality is that in many contexts, the competition is not between AI and people—it is between AI and nothing at all. When viewed through this lens, the value of AI becomes clearer. It is not about pitting machines against human expertise; it is about addressing the voids left by a lack of available service.

Consider healthcare, particularly in underserved areas. It is a truism that a qualified doctor’s advice is better than anything an AI could provide. But what if you live in a rural village where the nearest doctor is hundreds of miles away? Or in a developing country where medical professionals are stretched thin? Suddenly, the prospect of AI-driven medical advice does not seem like a compromise; it feels like a lifeline. While AI lacks the nuanced judgment of an experienced physician, it can provide basic diagnostics, suggest treatments, or alert patients to symptoms that warrant urgent attention. In such scenarios, AI does not replace a doctor—it replaces the silence of inaccessibility with something, however imperfect.

Another case in point is mental health counseling. In many parts of the world, even in affluent countries, mental health services are woefully inadequate. Students at universities often face wait times ranging from weeks to months just to speak with a counselor. During that limbo, the option to interact with an AI, even one with obvious limitations, can be a critical stopgap. It is not about AI outperforming a trained therapist but offering a form of support when no other is available. It can provide coping strategies, lend a sympathetic ear, or guide someone to emergency services. Here, AI does not replace therapy; it provides something valuable in the absence of timely human support.

Education offers another case for AI’s gap-filling potential. Tutoring is an essential resource, but access to quality tutors is often limited, mainly because it is expensive. Universities might offer tutoring services, but they are frequently understaffed or employ peer tutors. Office hours with professors or teaching assistants can be similarly constrained. AI can step into this void. Chatting with an AI about a difficult concept or problem set might not equal the depth of understanding gained from a one-on-one session with a human tutor, but it is unquestionably better than struggling alone. AI does not compete with tutors; it extends their reach into spaces they cannot physically or temporally cover.

The same logic applies to a range of other fields. Legal advice, financial planning, career coaching—all are areas where AI has the potential to add significant value, not by outstripping human expertise but by offering something in environments where professional advice is out of reach. Imagine a low-income individual navigating legal complexities without the means to hire an attorney. An AI could provide at least basic guidance, clarify legal jargon, and suggest possible actions. All of it must be done with proper disclaimers. It is not a substitute for legal representation, but it is a world better than the alternative: no help at all.

In embracing this non-competing stance, we shift the narrative. The role of AI is not to replace human experts but to step in where human services are scarce or nonexistent. The true potential of AI lies in its ability to democratize access to essential services that many people currently go without. When AI is viewed as a bridge rather than a rival, its utility becomes much more evident. AI does not have to be better than a person to be valuable; it just should be better than the void it fills.

The Right to Leapfrog: Redefining Educational Equity in the Age of AI

AI’s potential in education is clear, particularly in how it can assist students who struggle with traditional learning methods. It is broadly accepted that AI can help bridge gaps in cognitive skills, whether due to dyslexia, ADHD, or other neurodiverse conditions. Yet, the utility of AI should not be confined to specific diagnoses. Insights from decades of implementing the Response to Intervention (RTI) framework reveal that regardless of the underlying cause—be it neurodiversity, trauma, or socioeconomic factors—the type of support needed by struggling students remains remarkably consistent. If AI can aid students with reading difficulties, why not extend its benefits to others facing different but equally challenging obstacles? Equity demands that AI’s advantages be made accessible to all who need them, regardless of the origin of their challenges.

This brings us to a deeper issue: the rigid and often unjust link between procedural and conceptual knowledge. Traditionally, lower-level skills like spelling, grammar, and arithmetic have been treated as prerequisites for advancing to higher-order thinking. The prevailing notion is that one must first master these basics before moving on to creativity, critical thinking, or original thought. However, this linear progression is more a product of tradition than necessity. AI now offers us the chance to reconsider this approach. Students should have the right to leapfrog over certain lower-level skills directly into higher-order cognitive functions, bypassing unnecessary barriers.

Predictably, this notion encounters resistance. Rooted in the Protestant work ethic is the belief that one must toil through the basics before earning the right to engage in more sophisticated intellectual activities. This ethic, which equates hard work on mundane tasks with moral worth, is deeply ingrained in our educational systems. However, in an age where AI can handle many of these lower-level tasks, this mindset seems increasingly obsolete. Insisting that all students must follow the same sequence of skills before advancing to higher-order thinking is not just misguided; it is a relic of a bygone era. If AI enables students to engage meaningfully with complex ideas and creative thinking from the start, we should embrace that opportunity rather than constrain it with outdated dogma.

The implications of this shift are significant. If we recognize the right to leapfrog over certain skills, we must also acknowledge that traditional educational hierarchies need to be re-examined. Skills like spelling and grammar, while valuable, should no longer be gatekeepers for students who excel in critical thinking and creativity but struggle with procedural details. AI offers a way to reimagine educational equity, allowing students to focus on their strengths rather than being held back by their weaknesses. Rather than forcing everyone to climb the same cognitive ladder, we can enable each student to leap to the level that aligns with their abilities, creating a more personalized and equitable educational experience.

This rethinking of educational equity challenges deeply rooted assumptions. The belief that hard work on the basics is necessary for higher-level achievement is pervasive, but it is not supported by evidence. In reality, cognitive development is driven more by engagement with complex ideas than by rote mastery of procedural skills. AI provides the tools to focus on these higher-order skills earlier in the education, without the traditional prerequisite of mastering lower-order tasks.

Moreover, the concept of “deskilling” is not new. Throughout history, humanity has continually adapted to technological advances, acquiring new skills while allowing others to fade into obscurity. Today, few people can track animals or make shoes from anymal skin—skills that were once essential for survival. Even the ability to harness a horse, once a common necessity, is now a rare skill. While some may lament these losses, they are also a reminder that as society evolves, so too must our educational priorities. Just as technological advancements have rendered certain skills obsolete, AI is reshaping the skills that are most relevant today.

As we move forward, educators must rethink how learning experiences are designed. Rather than viewing AI as merely a tool for accommodating deficits, we should see it as a means of expanding possibilities for all students. By enabling learners to bypass certain skills that are no longer essential in an AI-driven world, we can better align education with the demands of the 21st century. This is about acknowledging that the path to learning does not have to be the same for everyone. In a world where AI can democratize access to higher-level cognitive tasks, the right to leapfrog is not just a possibility—it is a necessity for equitable education. 

Authorship, Automation, and Answerability

In the ongoing debate about the ethical use of AI, two main concerns stand out—one superficial and one profound. The first concern, often highlighted, is about the authenticity of authorship, with fears that AI-generated content might mislead us about who the true author is. However, this worry is largely misguided. It stems from a historically limited, Western-centric notion of authorship that blurs the line between the origin of ideas and the craft of their representation.

Take the legacy of Steve Jobs. He wasn’t celebrated for personally assembling each iPhone, but for his vision and design that brought the device to life. In our industrial world, the act of making things is not inherently authorial—designing them is. Why should it be any different with text, code, or images? If I designed this text, and used advanced tools to produce it, why am I not still the author? The shock many feel towards AI’s ability to generate content is akin to the upheaval experienced by 19th-century bootmakers during the Industrial Revolution. Automation has simply extended its reach into the realms of writing, coding, and art. The craftsmanship is replaced by automation, but the core principle remains: take pride in the ideas, not in the mechanics of their production. There is no inherent authorship in the latter.

But here’s where Mikhail Bakhtin’s notion of answerability helps our understanding of the true ethical stakes. While responsibility is often about fulfilling obligations or being held accountable after the fact, answerability is about our ongoing, active engagement with the world and the people in it. It is not just about who gets credit for the content; it is about recognizing that every action, every word, and every piece of AI-generated content occurs within a web of relationships. We are answerable to others because our creations—whether authored by human hands or machine algorithms—affect them.

The real concern, then, lies in the issue of answerability. AI-generated content often appears polished, convincing, and ready for immediate consumption. This creates a dangerous temptation to release such content into the world without thorough scrutiny. Here is where the ethical stakes rise significantly. AI may produce work that looks and sounds credible, but this does not guarantee that it is unbiased, meaningful, or truthful. It maybe garbage polluting the infosphere at best, or an outward harmful fake at worst. The ease of content creation does not absolve us of the responsibility to ensure its quality and integrity, and more importantly, it doesn’t free us from the answerability we have to the world around us.

This is the message we need to instill in our students, professionals, and anyone working with AI: you are still accountable and answerable for what you produce, even if a machine does the heavy lifting. Releasing AI-generated content without critical evaluation is akin to conjuring a spell without understanding its consequences. Like a magician wielding powerful but unpredictable magic, or a novice driver behind the wheel of a truck instead of a bicycle, the stakes have been raised. The tools at our disposal are more potent than ever, and with that power comes a heightened level of answerability.

In essence, the ethical debate surrounding AI shuold not be about the authorship of the craft but shuold be about the integrity and impact of the output. The real challenge is ensuring that what we create with these advanced tools is not only innovative but also responsible and answerable. As we continue to integrate AI into more aspects of our lives, we must focus less on who—or what—authored the content and more on the ethical implications of releasing it into the world. This is where the true ethical discourse lies, and it is here that our attention should be firmly fixed.

The Cognitive Leap Theory

With the arrival of AI, education is experiencing a profound shift, one that requires a rethinking of how we design and implement learning activities. This shift is captured in the cognitive leap theory, which posits that AI is not just an add-on to traditional education but a transformative force that redefines the learning process itself. The Cognitive Leap theory is a core part of a larger AI-positive pedagogy framework.

Traditionally, educational activities have been structured around original or revised Bloom’s Taxonomy, a framework that organizes cognitive skills from basic recall of facts (Remember) to higher-order skills like Evaluation and Creation. While Bloom’s pyramid was often interpreted as a sequential progression, Bloom himself never insisted on a strict hierarchy. In fact, with the integration of AI into the classroom, the importance of these skills is being rebalanced. The higher-order skills, particularly those involving critical evaluation, are gaining prominence in ways that were previously unimaginable.

In an AI-positive pedagogical approach, the focus shifts from merely applying and analyzing information—tasks typically associated with mid-level cognitive engagement—to critically evaluating and improving AI-generated outputs. This represents a significant cognitive leap. Instead of simply completing tasks, students are now challenged to scrutinize AI outputs for accuracy, bias, and effectiveness in communication. This shift not only fosters deeper cognitive engagement but also prepares students to navigate the complex landscape of AI-driven information.

A key component of this approach is the development of meta-AI skills. These skills encompass the ability to formulate effective (rich) inquiries or prompts for AI, to inject original ideas into these prompts, and, crucially, to critically assess the AI’s responses. This assessment is not a one-time task but part of an iterative loop where students evaluate, re-prompt, and refine until the output meets a high standard of quality. This process not only sharpens their analytical skills but also enhances their creative abilities, as they learn to think critically about the inputs and outputs of AI systems.

Moreover, the traditional view that learning progresses linearly through Bloom’s Taxonomy is being upended. In the AI-enhanced classroom, evaluation and creation are no longer the endpoints of learning but are increasingly becoming the starting points. Students must begin by evaluating AI-generated content and then proceed to improve it, a process that requires a deep understanding of context, an awareness of potential biases, and the ability to communicate effectively. This reordering of cognitive priorities is at the heart of the cognitive leap theory, which emphasizes that the future of education lies in teaching students not just to perform tasks but to engage in higher-order thinking at every stage of the learning process.

The implications of this shift are serious. Educators must rethink how they design assignments, moving away from traditional task-based assessments toward activities that challenge students to evaluate and improve upon AI-generated outputs. This requires a new kind of pedagogy, one that is flexible, iterative, and deeply engaged with the possibilities and limitations of AI.

By reimagining the role of higher-order thinking skills and emphasizing the critical evaluation of AI outputs, we can prepare students for a future where cognitive engagement is more important than ever. This is not just about adapting to new technology; it is about transforming the way we think about learning itself. 

Meet Jinni, a Universal Assistant Bot

In a busy campus with 30,000 students, hundreds of faculty, and staff, managing everyday tasks and emergencies can be tricky. Imagine a universal bot, named Jinni, designed to assist everyone regardless of what they want and need to happen. Here’s a glimpse into how this could transform daily life on campus.

Take Dr. Nguyen, for instance. A junior professor with a packed schedule, she was just invited to present at a conference in Milan but wasn't sure how to get funding. She turned to Jinni.
"Good afternoon, Professor Nguyen. What do you need today?" Jinni asked.
"I want to attend a conference in Milan. Can I get support?" she inquired.

Jinni quickly scanned the institutional website and the financial data wharehouse and responded, "In your College, it takes a request from your Associate Dean. There is still some travel budget left, but you need to hurry. However, if it’s not a peer-reviewed conference and you’re not presenting, I wouldn't bother—the College's policy does not allow for this."

It added, "If you’d rather tell me the details about the conference and upload the invitation letter, I can file the request for you. Or, you can follow the link and do it yourself."

Professor Nguyen appreciated the options and the clarity, and chose to upload her details, letting Jinni handle the rest. Within a minute, Jinni said "Done, you shuold hear from the dean's office within a week. I alrready checked your eligibility, and recommended the Associate Dean to approve."

Then there was Mr. Thompson, a new staff member who discovered a puddle in the lobby after a rainy night. He pulled out his phone and described the situation to Jinni.

"You need to file an urgent facilities request. Here’s the link. Would you like me to file one for you? If yes, take a picture of the puddle," Jinni offered. "But if it’s really bad, you may want to call them. Do you want me to dial?"

Mr. Thompson opted for the latter, and within moments, Jinni had connected him to the facilities team.

Finally, there was Jose, a student who had missed the course drop deadline because of a bad flu. Anxious and unsure what to do, he asked Jinni for help. 

"Sorry to hear you’ve been sick. Jose. Yes, there is a petition you can file with the Registrar," Jinni replied. "I can do it for you, but I need a few more details. Do you have a note from your doctor? If not, you should get it first, then take a picture of it for me. If you used the Campus Health Center, I can contact them for you to request documentation. I will then write and submit the petition on your behalf. I will also need a few details - which class, the instructore's name, when you got sick, etc." Jose was relieved to find a straightforward solution to his problem and began to answer Jinni's questions one by one. 

The technology to create a universal agent bot like Jinni is not yet on the open market, but all elements do already exist as prototypes. More advanced customizable AI models, trained on extensive and diverse datasets, are essential to handle such tasks. More active, agentic AI also does exist. It can file and submit forms, not just find them. But even if we could to simply find and interpret policy and procedures, and point users to the right forms, it would alredy be a huge step forward. 

Simplifying and streamlining hundreds of procedures that any complex organization develops is definitely possible, but we know few examples of successful transformations like that. The next best thing is to use AI to help people navigate those procedures. This will lower barriers for all and reduce transactional costs.