When you say “2025” out loud it sounds odd, like we’re talking about some far-off future but here it is. In the past, I’ve made resolutions, set goals, and chosen a word but entering this year I haven’t done those things. I don’t know if there’s one reason why but I do know as I sit here in a Starbucks watching vehicles speeding by, being reflective remains something I need to do more often and more intentionally. I was reminded of that as I read Sandra Lynn Shortall’s post about AI and movement. Sandra is an Assistant Superintendent in West Vancouver Schools. While blogging for many is a bit old hat, I value people like Sandra who remain committed to public reflection, inviting others to join in and use her words in their journey.
So I wanted to capture a few things I know I’ll be wrestling with and wondering about in 2025. To keep me accountable, I’ll share three other topics I’ll share thoughts on in the coming days. Future posts will be about:
But for today I’ll share some reflections on Generative AI and Fence-Sitting.
My work over the past 18 months has been dominated by our work in supporting school districts in the thoughtful use and implementation of Generative AI. Our message and belief have been clear from day one: Generative AI is full of opportunity and risk. As Leon Furze wrote:
I often get asked to explain, or more accurately, defend my position on AI in education. I actually quite like sitting up here on the fence with a good view of both the pros and the cons. I’ve also got a lot of respect for people on either side of the fence: the critics who wouldn’t touch AI with a 10-foot virtual pole, and the early and enthusiastic adopters who’ll find ways for everything they possibly can. I think we benefit from both perspectives, but I just can’t make myself fall to one side or another.
That’s precisely how I feel. I’m naturally a centrist in many things and I’ve come to realize that many people don’t like that. As we often see in politics and sports, people want you to choose a side. Right or wrong, I won’t do that.
I’ll give you an example of my ongoing struggle with AI. I read this research paper or to be honest, I skimmed it and used ChatGPT with the following prompt:: “I need you to look very closely at this research paper. Provide me with a detailed analysis of the methodology, a summary of the findings, the recommendations of this paper as well as any arguments that might challenge the findings, the method or the recommendation. Be fair and unbiased.”
I hope you picked up on the irony of that. The paper was about the impact of cognitive offloading and its findings suggested that it is happening. My use of AI was precisely cognitive offloading. I knew that but was trying to choose whether I wanted to spend my time thinking about the findings and if I needed to read the whole paper to do so. I can list the reasons why I think I made the right decision and also list the reasons I think I was wrong. I also think there’s a discussion to be had about the difference between adults offloading thinking versus children. These are essentially the kinds of questions that I find both fascinating and challenging. It’s not always fun to hold competing ideas in your head. At some point, we all seek a resolution. There are a number of other quandaries and ethical issues that require extensive conversation and reflection.
In November I was facilitating our first day in an Alberta school division. I referenced this post of mine and if saving time is always important and if we do save time, what are we saving it for? What unfolded was a very intense discussion among participants who had very different beliefs and perspectives. On the one hand, one participant shared how they had used AI to help them write a eulogy. They were not a particularly confident speaker and used AI to write something they felt good about delivering. Another participant questioned it and suggested that even a poorly written but heartfelt speech would have been better. Always seeking to make things more polished shouldn’t be a default. There was a back-and-forth “debate” that I let continue because I felt it represented the larger issues of the impact of AI. As I listened, I felt myself fully on the fence as both sides made compelling arguments. I felt no need to choose a side.
As I will continue to be knee-deep in this work I wonder if I’ll begin to see more evidence that will sway me closer to one side or the other.
I’ll end with a quote that I have previously attributed to Malcolm Gladwell which I believe I heard on a podcast but can’t find the source but either way I like the sentiment: “Ideas and dissonance should bring you joy”
I did not use AI to write this (although I did use Grammarly) but the image is AI-generated.