It is difficult to get many of the people I talk with to understand the value of critical thinking, because all their lives they’ve successfully done jobs that didn’t require it. Now a machine is doing those jobs and they are asking me what online college major will lead them to a good job with stable income.. but the new world requires more effort.
Alpha school uses intrinsic motivators to push K-12 learners to achieve mastery in basic subjects. But at the level of higher ed, I think that the motivation has to come from within. A scholar needs intense curiosity along with the willingness to put in lots of effort. I suspect that a community of similarly motivated individuals can help to foster that. The true scholar will let AI challenge him to become better. The more transactional student will not seek out challenge.
Is it ‘intrinsic’ motivation though? The whole program runs on ‘rewards’ for meeting specified outcomes, as far as I can see. That’s surely extrinsic motivation, though the student dies of course need to buy into the system.
As a teacher, I have been following the Cosmos Institute for sometime. I am encouraged that you are opening up your view to education and just granting the heavy lifting of working towards future autonomy towards technologists.
Everything is connected. The problem of education and technology is one of acceleration of information beyond evolved human capacity. It is the same problem in every part of society to the extent that the classical definition of parts has dissolved.
The coming age will be defined not by software nor hardware, but by the _wetware_ you're running.
As the Cosmos Institute recognizes, what is needed is an education that improves the quality of our cognitive abilities such as critical thinking, creativity, and seeing the gestalt. A new pedagogy that emphasizes the ability to critique arguments, identify fallacies, and differentiate truth from falsehood is the way through. While our technologies have advanced rapidly, our cultural literacy for interpreting them, both in relation to ourselves and to society at large, has not.
Great list. The tension running through all five sessions is one I think deserves sharper naming: AI has demolished the analytical bottleneck in education but left the synthetic one completely intact. Decomposing, retrieving, verifying, cross-checking: a machine can do all of that now. But bringing a frame to the material, asking a question no one was asking, connecting things that had not previously been connected, I think that still requires someone standing somewhere specific, with something at stake.
The institutional question is whether we are building places that develop that capacity or just places that teach people to supervise the analysis…
Great article and related to what I was trying to address with my idea for an AIQ university in my substack post here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-192507008. I would like to rethink about my idea in this 2x2 framework. Thanks!
Heavy skill development for a life dedicated to industry is quickly becoming obsolete at a remarkable rate. The learning landscape is trying to keep up but the learning needs are evolving too fast. What made sense last week is different this week. Perhaps we need more individual enlightenment in order to keep up? Focusing on reading and comprehension, problem-solving, working with teams, critical thinking, etc. will be better served for modern learning requirements.
Individual learning plans may include universities where teams are assembled to test and try new ideas in a laboratory setting, working beside AI.
In any case, once we can identify and understand the modern learning needs, we will see clearly what role(s) the modern school systems and universities will be playing for current and future learning expectations.
The Karlsson insight is the sharpest thing here: AI tutors will be held back by culture, not technology. But beneath culture is something more basic.
The capacity to stay in difficulty is not a character trait. It is a nervous system capacity. Formation requires a body that can tolerate not-knowing long enough for something to shift.
AI makes the exit from that discomfort frictionless. The question is not whether students will use it, but whether they can stay with difficulty when the easy exit is always available.
That is a question about regulation, not discipline.
I've been writing about how unfinished experience shapes attention, learning, and moral life.
It is difficult to get many of the people I talk with to understand the value of critical thinking, because all their lives they’ve successfully done jobs that didn’t require it. Now a machine is doing those jobs and they are asking me what online college major will lead them to a good job with stable income.. but the new world requires more effort.
Alpha school uses intrinsic motivators to push K-12 learners to achieve mastery in basic subjects. But at the level of higher ed, I think that the motivation has to come from within. A scholar needs intense curiosity along with the willingness to put in lots of effort. I suspect that a community of similarly motivated individuals can help to foster that. The true scholar will let AI challenge him to become better. The more transactional student will not seek out challenge.
Is it ‘intrinsic’ motivation though? The whole program runs on ‘rewards’ for meeting specified outcomes, as far as I can see. That’s surely extrinsic motivation, though the student dies of course need to buy into the system.
No, I mistyped. It is extrinsic motivation
Those last two sentences are key. Higher learning institutions might want to consider adding them to thier mission statement. Excellent insight.
As a teacher, I have been following the Cosmos Institute for sometime. I am encouraged that you are opening up your view to education and just granting the heavy lifting of working towards future autonomy towards technologists.
Everything is connected. The problem of education and technology is one of acceleration of information beyond evolved human capacity. It is the same problem in every part of society to the extent that the classical definition of parts has dissolved.
The coming age will be defined not by software nor hardware, but by the _wetware_ you're running.
As the Cosmos Institute recognizes, what is needed is an education that improves the quality of our cognitive abilities such as critical thinking, creativity, and seeing the gestalt. A new pedagogy that emphasizes the ability to critique arguments, identify fallacies, and differentiate truth from falsehood is the way through. While our technologies have advanced rapidly, our cultural literacy for interpreting them, both in relation to ourselves and to society at large, has not.
Also see the book: Class Clowns: How the Smartest Investors Lost Billions in Education by Jonathan A. Knee.
Great list. The tension running through all five sessions is one I think deserves sharper naming: AI has demolished the analytical bottleneck in education but left the synthetic one completely intact. Decomposing, retrieving, verifying, cross-checking: a machine can do all of that now. But bringing a frame to the material, asking a question no one was asking, connecting things that had not previously been connected, I think that still requires someone standing somewhere specific, with something at stake.
The institutional question is whether we are building places that develop that capacity or just places that teach people to supervise the analysis…
Great article and related to what I was trying to address with my idea for an AIQ university in my substack post here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-192507008. I would like to rethink about my idea in this 2x2 framework. Thanks!
Great program.
So Harvard completely got rid of Classics?
In your opinion, what is / are the reasons for this?
Heavy skill development for a life dedicated to industry is quickly becoming obsolete at a remarkable rate. The learning landscape is trying to keep up but the learning needs are evolving too fast. What made sense last week is different this week. Perhaps we need more individual enlightenment in order to keep up? Focusing on reading and comprehension, problem-solving, working with teams, critical thinking, etc. will be better served for modern learning requirements.
Individual learning plans may include universities where teams are assembled to test and try new ideas in a laboratory setting, working beside AI.
In any case, once we can identify and understand the modern learning needs, we will see clearly what role(s) the modern school systems and universities will be playing for current and future learning expectations.
The Karlsson insight is the sharpest thing here: AI tutors will be held back by culture, not technology. But beneath culture is something more basic.
The capacity to stay in difficulty is not a character trait. It is a nervous system capacity. Formation requires a body that can tolerate not-knowing long enough for something to shift.
AI makes the exit from that discomfort frictionless. The question is not whether students will use it, but whether they can stay with difficulty when the easy exit is always available.
That is a question about regulation, not discipline.
I've been writing about how unfinished experience shapes attention, learning, and moral life.
https://yauguru.substack.com/p/you-are-not-distracted-you-are-unfinished?r=217mr3