First off, I hope my thoughts aren't too off topic. But you got me thinking, and that's always dangerous.
I loved the essay. It's very provocative and you've provided me with much food for thought, as the cliche goes.
I was very interested in your point about knowing the rules which would facilitate thinking outside the box. My perspective is less that of an artist and more that of a scientist.
The endocrinologist János Hugo Bruno "Hans" Selye, in his book "In Vitro," separated scientists into 2 categories: "problem finders" and "problem solvers."
Selye made the point that one "finder" who defined but a single problem could keep dozens of "solvers" busy for decades.
I see the "finder" as thinking outside the box and the "solver" as functioning within the box defined by the "found problem."
IMO any area of investigation benefits from both "finders" and "solvers" and yet there is a huge tension between them.
The downside to the "finders" is that lots of "found problems" many of which may be total wastes of time and resources (some would point to the Global Warming tipping point that WILL be reached in 2016(!) or 2024(!)}
The downside of "solvers" is that they can become so committed to a finder's framework that they are reluctant or outright resistant to thinking outside the box (protection of reputations, money for research, etc.) and opposing any alternative framework that would render them less important or negate years of hard work.
(Such resistance is part of human nature. Consider psychologist Anthony Pratkanis view on commitment to a course of thinking: https://tinyurl.com/mr3vuxy7
"2. Set a Rationalization Trap. The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right.")
I am hopeful that AI will turn out to be a counter to such human-nature limitations, but I simply don't know what kind of unpleasant "unknown unknowns" AI might introduce into our world, either when it comes to finding or solving problems. I guess we'll see.
I think where some folks become averse to AI is the perceived downside -- it's ability to grant those with less talent & intellect the appearance of having talent & intellect. The upside is it's ability to help those with talent & intellect to do what they already do well, but do it even better. You kind of touch on this with it teaching master chess-players novel and risky moves. I imagine that tools are tools... and the first humans to use forks (let's say) faced incredulity as well. But, you know, forks are an excellent mechanism for eating... at the end of every hard earned day, people find some reason to believe!
Appreciate your comment, Rebecca! And I agree. More worryingly, AI can become a crutch, a substitute for developing talent in the first place. I recently watched an interview with a 26-year-old English teacher who quit her job because of how AI and phones have changed the dynamics of the profession. And yet there are entire levels of possibility with AI beyond just using ChatGPT to generate English homework. As you say, the "winners" will be those with talent and intellect who can use AI to augment their already existing skills.
I think it certainly will become a crutch. And education has to adapt -- same as when calculators (and advanced graphing calculators) or cliff's notes -- came on the scene. Teachers will still have to judge if students have understood the underlying concepts. It does put teachers in a rough spot, but not particularly any rougher than before. The lazy will always invent -- and use -- tricks. Sometimes they will pay off. Sometimes they won't. I suppose in some ways lazyness is a talent of its own, but it's up to everyone not to openly reward it.
First off, I hope my thoughts aren't too off topic. But you got me thinking, and that's always dangerous.
I loved the essay. It's very provocative and you've provided me with much food for thought, as the cliche goes.
I was very interested in your point about knowing the rules which would facilitate thinking outside the box. My perspective is less that of an artist and more that of a scientist.
The endocrinologist János Hugo Bruno "Hans" Selye, in his book "In Vitro," separated scientists into 2 categories: "problem finders" and "problem solvers."
Selye made the point that one "finder" who defined but a single problem could keep dozens of "solvers" busy for decades.
I see the "finder" as thinking outside the box and the "solver" as functioning within the box defined by the "found problem."
IMO any area of investigation benefits from both "finders" and "solvers" and yet there is a huge tension between them.
The downside to the "finders" is that lots of "found problems" many of which may be total wastes of time and resources (some would point to the Global Warming tipping point that WILL be reached in 2016(!) or 2024(!)}
The downside of "solvers" is that they can become so committed to a finder's framework that they are reluctant or outright resistant to thinking outside the box (protection of reputations, money for research, etc.) and opposing any alternative framework that would render them less important or negate years of hard work.
(Such resistance is part of human nature. Consider psychologist Anthony Pratkanis view on commitment to a course of thinking: https://tinyurl.com/mr3vuxy7
"2. Set a Rationalization Trap. The rationalization trap is based on the premise: Get the person committed to the cause as soon as possible. Once a commitment is made, the nature of thought changes. The committed heart is not so much interested in a careful evaluation of the merits of a course of action but in proving that he or she is right.")
I am hopeful that AI will turn out to be a counter to such human-nature limitations, but I simply don't know what kind of unpleasant "unknown unknowns" AI might introduce into our world, either when it comes to finding or solving problems. I guess we'll see.
I think where some folks become averse to AI is the perceived downside -- it's ability to grant those with less talent & intellect the appearance of having talent & intellect. The upside is it's ability to help those with talent & intellect to do what they already do well, but do it even better. You kind of touch on this with it teaching master chess-players novel and risky moves. I imagine that tools are tools... and the first humans to use forks (let's say) faced incredulity as well. But, you know, forks are an excellent mechanism for eating... at the end of every hard earned day, people find some reason to believe!
Appreciate your comment, Rebecca! And I agree. More worryingly, AI can become a crutch, a substitute for developing talent in the first place. I recently watched an interview with a 26-year-old English teacher who quit her job because of how AI and phones have changed the dynamics of the profession. And yet there are entire levels of possibility with AI beyond just using ChatGPT to generate English homework. As you say, the "winners" will be those with talent and intellect who can use AI to augment their already existing skills.
I think it certainly will become a crutch. And education has to adapt -- same as when calculators (and advanced graphing calculators) or cliff's notes -- came on the scene. Teachers will still have to judge if students have understood the underlying concepts. It does put teachers in a rough spot, but not particularly any rougher than before. The lazy will always invent -- and use -- tricks. Sometimes they will pay off. Sometimes they won't. I suppose in some ways lazyness is a talent of its own, but it's up to everyone not to openly reward it.