“Generative artificial intelligence can be seen as a threat that schools would benefit from keeping at bay”

Faced with the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) in societies, those responsible for educational systems generally choose to adopt, although with nuances and reservations, a favorable position, thus validating the hypothesis of a potential benefit of this technology for education. . On what arguments is this principled position based? Could other arguments be put forward against it?

The claim of the inevitability of the spread of AI is a prediction. This is its main weakness because the future is never certain. Especially since this prediction has its origin in the large digital companies, the Gafam: Google (Alphabet), Apple, Facebook (Meta), Amazon and Microsoft, which predict what is best for them and, therefore, find themselves in an obvious situation of conflict of interest. That it is massively adopted by the media and organizations that find a direct interest in it, but also by education executives, is due, first of all, to the power of Gafam and its power of influence.

The interest that young audiences showed very early in generative AI, particularly in ChatGPT which its creator generously made available to them, is often cited as one of the visible signs of the inevitable nature of the spread of AI in the education, in a way. forcing teachers to care about it: since your students use it, you might as well teach them how to do it well.

The Educational Utility Argument

This argument is based on the hypothesis that not only would there be uses of generative AI that would be beneficial for learning, but also that uses that would not be beneficial could be avoided through appropriate education. These two hypotheses deserve at least serious examination before submitting to them.

The educational utility argument reinforces the inevitability argument. It can be defended from various angles. Teachers believe that certain AI provides them with the means to design and implement educational activities that they believe are beneficial to themselves and their students. Publishers believe that AI provides them with the means to design more effective digital assets. Whatever one thinks of these initiatives, it is clear that the educational freedom of teachers and the creative freedom of editors can only be respected.

You have 62.24% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.