AI and Education: What's Changing, What Kids Must Learn, and the Path Forward | SXSW

I think we need to move away from

preparing kids for jobs cuz jobs are

going to change. The way students are

taught and what they're taught to

optimize for is very at odds with where

we're at right now with AI. The safest

assumption we have to make in this

moment is that kids are going to be

using artificial intelligence at home.

So, the classroom really has to be a

place where the deep learning is

happening and where we're raising the

bar on knowledge. When you outsource

your cognitive work to an AI, you

actually become cognitively weaker. This

is potentially really detrimental to

society more broadly that we become so

reliant on these technologies, we stop

believing in our own ability to make

decisions. In the age of advanced

technologies, kids need to read more and

we'll have to make school harder. The

most important skills for the future

have nothing to do with technology.

What should kids be studying and

learning today for a future that's going

to be transformed by artificial

intelligence? And how does the

institution of education need to evolve

to meet the moment? In the spirit of

South by Southwest, I'm going to share a

talk that I delivered on this topic

where I go into detail on some of these

ideas from where we can expect this

technology to take us to the skills kids

in school today need to be cultivating

and the systemwide change the

institution of education is going to

need to undergo to prepare kids properly

for this world. I'm Chenade Boll and

this is I've Got Questions. Um, super

delighted to be moderating this

conversation with the fabulous Chenade

Boval. Chenade, tell us what it is to be

a strategic foresight adviser and your

lens on AI and the future of education.

>> Yeah. Um, you know, education is the

bedrock for a healthy democracy and for

a functioning society. uh and it's not

just essential for things like economic

mobility and economic security but

fairness as well uh and for well-being.

I believe there's no such thing as a

state that overinvests in children's

future. An investment in children is an

investment in national interest. Right?

So, you want to foster uh an informed

and adaptive citizenry that can not just

safeguard the future, but thrive in it.

Especially a future that's going to be

as complex as the one children in school

today are entering into, which will be

shaped by quantum computing, genetic

engineering, artificial intelligence,

commuting back and forth to space. This

is an incredibly complex world they'll

be entering into. Uh so the more that

they can understand it, the more we can

support them in that journey, the better

equipped they are. And that's an

investment in a country's economic

security, in our collective health and

well-being, and our overall security and

national security interests. Goodness.

So couldn't be a more pressing u topic.

Uh and before we dive into um some of

the kind of finer points, where would

you say taking a step back like where

are we at this moment with AI?

So if I were to say where we are, I mean

it's very very early. Maybe it's 1992.

The internet has dropped. Companies are

experimenting. We know it's maybe going

to big be a big deal, but there's still

a lot of doubt. Some people are also

kind of playing around on it. But we

have yet to fully comprehend the way it

is going to fundamentally transform our

world. the Googles, the Apples, the

Amazons of the future, they have yet to

be invented, but they're coming. And

artificial intelligence, it's also a

general purpose technology. So, similar

to something like electricity. Think of

how pervasive electricity is, we don't

even think about it at all. It's so

foundational that it's moved into the

background. So, we will soon be

streaming artificial intelligence the

way we stream electricity. that is going

to be a fundamentally different society

to live in. Uh and these general purpose

technologies they take time to get so

entrenched in society. But you know when

it's reached that point because when

people can't access general purpose

technologies whether that's at a country

level at certain neighborhoods we deem

that wildly unethical. Who doesn't get

fair access to the internet? Who doesn't

get access to electricity? That is the

path artificial intelligence is on.

So if artificial intelligence is going

to be this general purpose technology

and fade into the background,

what does AI and education

look like now? Like how should educators

be considering AI and education given

that it will be in the background but

today we're at this very early phase.

Yes. So I think that there are kind of

three pillars that are related but

distinct in terms of how we should be

thinking about AI in education. The

first pillar is safe adoption for kids

and for learners. So this means

equipping kids with the tools to

navigate artificial intelligence because

they're going to be on these tools at

home regardless. They have

supercomputers in their pockets,

supercomputers on their iPads. So giving

uh kids the the skills to utilize these

tools safely. So that's conversations

like AI isn't your friend, right? Your

chatbot isn't something that you tell

secrets to. This is what we do or don't

share with artificial intelligence. And

this is all also how you ask it good

questions and validate its answers. So

that's pillar one. Pillar two is how do

we more urgently adjust what we are

teaching in school or just the formula

for what happens in the classroom versus

what happens at home knowing that kids

are going to be leaning into these

technologies at home to do homework and

to complete assignments. The third

pillar and this is where I think we are

rushing into but this is actually the

long-term game is how do we

fundamentally redesign the entire system

of education for the age of artificial

intelligence. But what seems to be

happening in this moment is we are kind

of merging all of those pillars in a

sense of urgency. And this leads us to

deploy AI in schools for the sake of

feeling like we need to meet the moment

by bringing AI into the classroom. And

there are a lot of technologies that

aren't ready. So I think we focus on

pillar one, giving kids the tools to use

these tools safely if they're going to

be using them on their phones. We

slightly adjust what we're teaching to

account for cheating in homework. But

it's much more at the departments of

education, the ministries of education

level to take this longer term lens and

fundamentally redesign AI or school for

the age of artificial intelligence. So I

think we've heard this week a number of

different ways that educators are

experimenting with AI, different pilots,

different ways of going about it. Like

is now the time to be exounds like we

should be teaching it and educating

about it? is now the time to be

experimenting with it in deeper ways.

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, teaching it is

it's more so AI is a hard skill. So,

that should be happening. Uh

experimenting with it. Yes. We need to

be running these pilots. We need to be

gathering the data as to what's working

and what's not. But it has to be in very

very intentional ways. Um and not just

assuming that we can just throw in an AI

tutor somewhere arbitrarily and that's

going to be sufficient. um and making

sure that we're not running social

experiments that jeopardize learning

outcomes uh for the sake of just feeling

like we need to quickly meet the moment.

Uh so yes, I think that these

experiments, they're vital. They should

be happening uh but they need to be very

very intentional uh and very very

controlled.

I know that you're working with

Fortune50 companies in this space and

advising them on how to navigate AI and

education. what are some of the data

points or and the advice that you've

been giving them?

>> Yeah, so it's been really really

interesting to look at some of the data

that's coming through and of course

we're still very very early in early in

the age of using artificial intelligence

in education. Uh but there's one clear

trend that stands out. So, I'm going to

walk us through a study that I find

particularly helpful. And this was done

uh by the University of Wharton, the

University of um I believe Pennsylvania

and uh Budapest British International

School and it implemented artificial

intelligence in math classes. Uh so

there were a few math classes in the

high school and they broke the class up

into three groups. The control group

which is just your traditional doing

homework problems with your textbook. uh

the GPT base group and this is the

students that got uninhibited access to

artificial intelligence. Uh and then the

GPT tutor group. So these are students

that got access to an AI that has been

designed to just guide them through

problems, give them hints but not the

answers. All students got the base

lesson for math together and then they

broke out into their respective groups

and their respective tiers of AI access

or not. So the study showed that when it

came to the practice problems, the

children that got uninhibited access to

AI did 48% better on the practice

problems than the control group. The

students that got access to the GPT

tutor did 127% better than the control

group. But when it came back time to

actually test students without access to

AI and do the final postunit test, the

kids that got the uninhibited access

performed 17% worse. So AI harmed the

learning outcome. And the children that

got access to the AI tutor performed at

the same level as the children that

didn't get access to any artificial

intelligence. And so the conclusion of

the study was that generative AI harms

learning outcomes. But then there was a

second study that happened at Harvard.

And of course we have to control for the

fact that self-directed learning is a

little bit different at a university

level. Um and clearly if you're getting

into Harvard, there's also some kind of

higher order thinking that you're able

to do. Um but that aside, it was a

physics class and they broke the physics

class into two groups. The control

group, which is the students that went

to the traditional lecture with the with

the professor. Uh then they broke out

into peer groups and and worked uh with

one another and their peers and had

instructor-led guidance on solving

problems. The second group had no

in-class lessons at all. The entire

process with was done with AI, but they

specifically designed the AI to be

self-paced uh going with the students

needs to provide immediate feedback

whether the student was on the right

direction or off the right direction

while they're doing the problems to

provide motivation and to really take

all learning best practices and

implement it into that system and

continue to adapt how it tested the

child based on where how they were

evolving um and doing the problems. when

they did the general test after those

two experiments, the kids that went the

pathway of artificial intelligence

performed twice as well as the peers

that didn't get access to AI and they

were more motivated and more engaged.

And so what we can learn from just those

two kind of isolated studies is that you

have to adapt the entire ecosystem,

right? It it's akin to inventing

electricity but only swapping out where

the steam engine was and putting light

switch there or light switch there. Not

building out the entire assembly line

and rethinking about how we design the

system. That's step one. Step two,

immediate feedback is absolutely vital

in AI learning outcomes. Gone are the

days if we're going to incorporate

artificial intelligence where we wait

for the unit test or midterms or the end

ofear exam to see where students are.

Artificial intelligence needs to be able

need to be able to extract the data in

real time. This is how somebody's

adapting or this is how they're falling

behind. And AI needs to provide that

feedback or else we learn visibility. We

lose visibility into how well things are

happening. Self-paced learning is also

vital. So if you go back to the the high

school, everybody had an hour and a half

to learn the math problem. So whether

you were working with your textbook or

working with AI, that hurt people that

were doing the AI method and it helped

people doing the traditional method. So

kids need to learn at their own pace. Uh

and the system needs to be able to adapt

in real time. So those are just a few of

the key takeaways uh when we think about

AI and education. Um, but that's why

this is a longer term redesign and that

redesign should not fall on teachers.

Uh, and that's one thing that I think we

need to really make clear that this

moment shouldn't fall on teachers. They

already have way too much on their

plate. Uh, this is something for

government departments head department

heads and those designing curricula more

broadly and I think we're getting that

wrong. Right. Yes.

Um I had um the opportunity to sit on a

few panels yesterday and there was

definitely um you know a very

understandably iate educator was like we

had co we had you know we're in an

underprivileged area we've got so many

pressures and now we have AI to learn

and we have to do this two-day course

and then the pilot ends and then we've

got to go and do another two-day course

and AI is the last thing that we need.

Um, so it sounds like there is a right

way to do it and there are definitely

ways um that can uh be harmful and some

of those right ways involve a lot of

structural redesign of how um of of how

students actually engage with AI.

>> Yeah, this is like the institution of

education. We need to approach

differently. Uh it's akin to asking the

accountant to redesign the the concrete

and the bricks. uh that's not what we

should be doing and I know that you

there was a we had talked about a school

that you had been tracking uh so I think

it could be helpful to share some of the

insights there

>> yeah absolutely um people familiar with

alpha school in the room a few people um

what it is it's a 2hour

learning process where like all the hard

skills all the knowledge that you need

to learn at school happens in a 2-hour

period with an AI tutor and the

experience is entirely personalized at

adapted to where that student is at. So

if you walk around uh the classroom,

you'll see different students working on

completely different math problems,

let's say, and as uh it's understood

what that student is interested in, the

math problems become kind of

contextualized within topics that they

love. Um and so and critically and again

sort of going back to one of the um best

practices or you know um mandatories in

AI being successful um in schools

there's real time feedback and

performance on performance of that

child. they can see their own

performance and actually start to own

that journey for themselves and uh they

get everyone into the 99th percentile no

matter where the where they've started

in their journey. So I think that's a

fascinating way um to look at it and I

think that uh besides those two hours so

the point of getting you know all of

that work done in those two hours and

some people are able to some some

students are able to accomplish more

double in those two hours and some on

the higher performing end five times

more. Um, but the critical part is

freeing those students to focus on life

skills, on EQ skills, on kind of

developing their own human ingenuity.

And so I feel like that is, you know,

from all the research that you've

discussed, just an amazing example of of

what's happening today.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. Totally. Uh, and and that's kind

of the moment we're in, right? were in

pilots, in experimentation, uh, and

innovation. Uh, really a a redesign,

zoom out, wide lens, um, and some in

some ways taking risks, but it should

never hurt the learning outcome and it

should never be a burden to teachers and

both of those things need to be true.

>> Absolutely. Um so did want to kind of

like dig in a little bit more into some

of the current challenges with AI that

you know educators, students, parents

are experiencing today which is around

AI and cheating

um and using you know chat GPT to to get

to the answer uh right away and um what

impact that might be having on the

learner experience and kind of the point

of being at school.

>> Yes. Oh, absolutely. And I think that

that we're in a bit of a crisis in in

this moment when it comes to artificial

intelligence and cheating. And we can

talk about what happens when you kind of

shortcircuit that that thinking. But I

think that the safest assumption we have

to make in this moment is that kids are

going to be using artificial

intelligence at home. So whatever

happens past 300 p.m., expect that to be

powered by a supercomput in some way. So

we have to start there. That means we

have to change what we are doing in the

classroom. And so in some instances that

means maybe we flip what happens at home

happens in the classroom. Uh but in

other ways maybe for example you teach

history. You give children the the

research portion and they can go home

and do all the research with CHBT that

they want but the higher order critical

thinking deep learning and discussion

all of that happens in the classroom. So

the classroom really has to be a place

where the deep learning is happening,

where the testing is happening, uh, and

where we're raising the bar on

knowledge, but we do have to assume

everything passed four is likely going

to be done, co-created by, or outsourced

to an AI system. And then again, the

broader goal and the longer term goal is

that we've entirely redesigned the

curriculum to account for the fact that

kids can lean into supercomputers

because that is the actual goal. In the

end, kids in school today are going to

step out into a world with advanced

robots, with supercomputers that are

polymaths. We want them to know how to

engage with these with these tools and

these systems, how to utilize them, how

to invent with them. And we'll have to

redesign education to account for that.

And we'll have to make school harder

because you do get access to these

supercomputers. And so in a in a kind of

superficial way, maybe that means people

are learning about quantum computing at

seven years old because that learning is

facilitated by a teacher and by a

supercomputer. But that part is going to

take time. So the more urgent kind of

redesign is flipping what happens in

school uh towards and versus what

happens at home. uh what happens if we

don't do that and I think it's quite

obvious right we we end up just

shortcircuiting the thinking uh so there

shouldn't be anything to cheat on

because what happens at home isn't what

we are evaluating uh and that is I think

the kind of the baseline that we need to

to move towards and that's I think what

we should be doing more urgently

so many places to go from everything

that you just said there um but I'd say

you know soam maybe a positive example

of how outside of hard learning and

maybe an AI tutor helping you learn the

things that you need to learn at your

own pace in the most individualized and

sort of datari manner um well how can

you use AI outside of that core learning

uh in a way that helps helps children

become more human right so like what

does human flourishing kind of look like

and does AI have a role in that I think

we need to learn how they work and learn

how to use them but also what should we

as humans be focused on because we want

to collaborate with AI. So what are the

sorts of uh subjects and skills that are

deeply human that we can focus on and

something I've been thinking about quite

a bit recently is like different types

of knowing. Uh there's a cognitive

scientist called John Vivei and he plots

out different types of knowing and kind

of the most sort of like academic or

kind of researchbased and fact and

knowledge based uh learning is

procedural knowing. Um and that's the

kind of knowing that AI is really good

at and is getting increasingly good at.

But what AI doesn't have is lived

experience and deep insights that change

you as you experience them in the world,

change your perception of the world, and

then change how you connect with others.

And so I've been really interested to to

hear some of the talks this week about

experiential in learning environments.

Um, I I learned about Thinkery, which is

here in Austin, and it's kind of this

interactive learning museum environment.

And it's just really interesting to

think about what are those deeply human

skills that we can be focused on

teaching students while they're learning

what AI is and the best ways to

collaborate with AI.

>> Yeah, I think that that's vital. And I

just wanted to quickly go back to the

cheating. Another thing we'll probably

need to do in the short term is

introduce more pop quizzes and surprise

tests and they don't need to count

towards grades but to see where students

are as we are in this kind of new

territory. So a lot of times we don't

know how much they're using AI, how much

they're cheating with it to insert more

more chances for assessment uh and be

tracking that data because that's

another thing. we don't have a lot of

visibility into how this experiment is

going in terms of what AI can do and

what AI can't do and therefore what

should we be teaching kids in particular

and what skills should be fostering. Um

my philosophy is we should never assume

AI will never be able to do something

and the the reality is we cannot predict

the future what jobs will be there how

advanced AI is going to get and how

quickly that means we have to prepare

kids for absolutely anything whichever

way the future evolves however quickly

we get to the moon start genetic

engineering kids can pivot adapt and

think critically about the world around

them. And most of those skills don't

actually have anything to do with

technology. Technology, they require

deeper thinking. Critical thinking is

absolutely vital. In the age of advanced

technologies, kids need to read more.

Read for the sake of reading and read in

a way that they can come back to school

or with their parents and discuss the

ideas and have those ideas challenged.

Kids need to play more in the age of

advanced technologies. The future Steve

Jobs of the world, they're not going to

come from a corporate cubicle. They're

going to come from people that have

imagination that can play freely,

experiment, work collaboratively,

long-term thinking. So, getting kids to

think beyond the immediate horizon and

beyond just that this unit test in

chemistry or in math, but how could this

impact things in five, 10 years to come?

uh and even cross-disciplinary thinking.

Kids in school today are likely to hold

17 jobs across five different

industries. They won't be doing just one

thing. So, we have to get them to think,

how does math connect to what I just

learned in history, which might connect

to what I do in in philosophy or in

English. So, all of these new and

they're not even new skills, but it's

just about centering these types of

skills. uh most of the important the

most important skills for the future are

ones we can foster for free and that's

what I think we can sometimes miss in

these moments where tech we feel like we

have to lean into technology for the

sake of it uh but it's actually the

other skills that we need to make sure

we are doubling down on in the age of of

advanced technologies uh and one kind of

lived example that I that I do with my

nieces and nephews constantly since the

age of about six or seven I

theoretically introduced uce them to

technology and this is what can happen

in the classroom as well. I explain

concepts in age appropriate ways like

genetic engineering and I ask them to

interpret what that would mean for their

world and their sense of ethics. So if

we could theoretically make sure nobody

gets sick in the world with these

technologies should we do that? But what

if to my nephew it meant all that

basketball practice you do somebody

didn't have to do because that same

technology allows them to suddenly be

really good at basketball. How should we

think about that? They engage in the

higher order thinking. They're exposed

to the longerterm concepts of technology

without actually having to play around

passively on an iPad. Uh so these are

the types of deep conversations and

higher order thinking that can happen

into the classroom that teachers are

uniquely positioned to deliver and to

facilitate. I mean when you think about

a teacher and they don't get enough

credit for all of the things that they

do. I mean the curriculum is one small

part of it. They are social workers,

they are therapists. They know their

children inside and out. So being able

to go deep into these types of

conversations, that's what we also need

to be focusing on. And I know it

sometimes feels counterintuitive because

I'm a futurist and I spend most of my

days in patents in technologies talking

about robots uploading brain interfaces

yet the most important skills for the

future have nothing to do with

technology.

>> Great. And I want to go back to uh

something that you said. So technology

for the sake of technology is absolutely

not the right way to go about things but

learning for the sake of learning is.

And some really interesting insights uh

this week about how schools and

testbased learning does not set students

up to enjoy or take pride in just the

the sort of act of learning. And you

know sort of encouraged and optimized to

find the answer, get the answer right.

And then even in a critical uh thinking

class that uh cognitive scientist uh

Christine Legari talked about yesterday,

even in that class where there is no

right answer, what the students wanted

is they wanted the rubric to get there.

And what she said to them is like, well,

you know, do you think you're you're

going to when you have a job in the real

world, do you think that there is a way

like, you know, you're not going to be

asked to to, you know, discover the

answer or or where we should go or the

right path, I should say, um, by being

given the rubric. So it sort of seemed

very we're at this kind of acute moment

where

the way students are taught and what

they're taught to optimize for is very

at odds with where we're at right now

with AI and the fact that it is designed

to give you the answer. And I actually

talked to a teacher who said uh teaching

16 to 18 year olds and she was like okay

so what I do to try and kind of

circumvent the use of AI and writing is

I have my students write in class and

you know I do give them a bit of a

rubric like this is you know a good

structure for an essay and then when it

comes time to actually submit the essay

they go home and type it up. In some

cases, more in a few cases, that student

had kind of ripped up their essay and

basically just completely generated a

new one in chat GPT. And what that said

to me was, I mean, there was no like

time saved or cognitive load saved in

doing that. What that says to me is that

there's like a we're in a confidence

crisis. Yeah. And this is this is

potentially really detrimental to

society more broadly, not just kids, but

all of us that we become so reliant on

these technologies. We stop believing in

our own ability to make decisions. And

no matter how good technology gets at

something, there will be times when we

have to deviate from the technologies

advice. And we have to make sure we are

ready for all of those moments. And you

might even hear people talk about

optimizing every aspect of your life

with artificial intelligence. And I

somewhat take issue with that because if

des writing that email is the the one

time in the day where you think deeply,

you you move through your ideas, uh you

have to structure what you want to say

and you pass that to an AI, unless you

were replacing that time and that

thinking with something else, that's a a

dicey bridge to be walking down. And

there was a recent study, I believe it

was Microsoft and and Carnegie that that

uh joined forces for this study and it

did show that over reliance on

artificial intelligence can reduce our

ability to think critically. Uh so we

need to make sure we are strengthening

these skills as we start to move and

work alongside artificial intelligence.

And there was another study that was

really helpful that showed this in real

life in the workforce where

entrepreneurs were given access to AI

systems to help with their small

businesses. The high-erforming

entrepreneurs that had deep critical

thinking skills, AI supercharged their

performance because they knew the right

questions to ask of the AI and they knew

how to apply the AI's answer to their

business. When the lower performing

entrepreneurs asked AI questions, they

ended up doing worse and it hurt the

company because they asked the wrong

questions, they just gave up and asked

the hard questions and they didn't know

how to apply the material to their

actual startup. So, we don't want to

build societies where we are 100%

reliant on these systems. Uh, and that's

something that we have to really think

carefully about from at an adult age and

at a child age. And I think we're

already seeing it in terms of our

attention spans, spelling. I'm sure

there's a lot of people in this room,

myself included, who feel like, I

spelled that word last week and now I

have no idea how to spell it this week.

Uh we want to make sure we're not

shortcircuiting the thinking uh in this

age. So again, really centering deep

problem solving, critical thinking, um

and deep learning.

Yeah, there's been a number of studies

like the Carnegie Melon Microsoft one

that shows when you outsource your

cognitive work to an AI, you actually

become cognitively weaker. And that

seems like extremely critical at an age,

you know, in a period in time where, you

know, students are supposed to be honing

their cognitive um abilities. But then

it's like, well, how do you know how can

you engage with that AI? you know, in a

way to actually um benefit from it. And

knowing that you if you outsource the

cognitive load and you're not doing the

cognitive work yourself, not only are

you missing that moment, but you're

missing that the insight kind of living

within you and kind of settling within

you and kind of becoming who you are and

increasing your body of knowledge and

your resilience and your strength and

your expertise. And it seems like in

this day and age where it's so uncertain

what jobs will look like, what the

future will look like, kind of radical

self-dependence is something that we

should be teaching. Um, and uh, it would

be great to kind of hear a little bit

about where we think that kind of

responsibility

lies in that respect.

>> Yeah. Um, and I always hesitate to when

I think about responsibility

to bring in parents because everybody h

is coming from a different place um, and

we can't really control what happens in

the home. That's an that's an entire

other week of Southby making sure that

all homes are equal and have um, access

to the same things. Uh, but in school, I

think we really need to think about

building confidence as a skill for kids

so they can continue to trust the

questions that they're asking. um and

their own ability to generate answers.

And again, it doesn't mean, of course,

in a world where AI is a master of

quantum computing, we want kids to be

able to ask a questions, but we help

them think more deeply about the

questions that they're answering and

they have a broad understanding of the

the questions that they're asking them.

They have a broad understanding of the

answers that AI can give them. And

again, that is a fundamentally different

society, right? Where we go from what is

the answer to what is the question. And

that's why that is part of that bigger

systemwide redesign. Uh but I think

centering confidence, encouraging kids

to speak in front of class, uh

classmates engage in conversation

because that is also the interface of

the future. It's it's conversing with

these AI systems is is absolutely

critical. And then in terms of you asked

what are the jobs of the future, nobody

can really predict them. We can predict

the jobs that are going to be automated.

That's much easier to see. Um, but the

same way nobody 20 years ago could have

predicted a social media manager was

going to be vital to a company's

existence, most of the jobs we can't

really see. We know that there's going

to be some convergence of synthetic

biology and artificial intelligence in

space. Uh, but again, it's about

preparing kids for anything. uh not just

trying to I I think we need to move away

from preparing kids for jobs because

jobs are going to change and that much

we can guarantee and that also means

moving away from coupling identity to

jobs. We have to move away from that

entire philosophy, right? That that idea

that we learn, we work, we retire,

that's all changing. So instead, we

encourage kids to lean into the the

problems that they want to solve, the

skills that they want to to adopt and

the amazing ways that they want to

change the world. I mean, tell kids

about the robots and the AI systems that

they'll be living with and ask them what

they want to do with it versus coupling

identity to jobs because that is just

going to end up uh in a crisis and we're

we're moving away into an entirely

different type of world. And so some of

the skills that we can teach children to

kind of prepare for this new future um

people sort of use a term like

metacognition right so how to think and

it was interesting uh in a in a talk

yesterday so you know one educator was

saying you know well you can't

necessarily stop people from you stop

students from using chat GPT but

something that he does is like okay you

used it show me your prompts show me the

questions that you asked it show me how

you pushed chat GPT because if you can

ask good questions and if you can become

a good communicator and you don't

necessar and you kind of know where you

want the answer to go and you can prompt

in that direction then um then then

that's that's a skill that's a skill for

for today and and for the future. Um,

another skill that sort of came up as

kind of an experimental sort of skill,

the New York Times recently uh covered a

story about using this term like a vibe

engineer, which is this idea that kind

of almost anyone with the will and the

passion to do it. Um, and that's

something that I think, you know, we

need to double down on on encouraging in

every individual, but anybody with the

will and the desire to create an app can

basically do that now. And it's this

thing called like vibe engineering. So

um a lot of people kind of creating apps

for themselves or apps for just a few

people. And so one of the kind of

emerging uh skills that was discussed I

was like around human- centered design.

So if every anybody can design products

for others like how do we get into you

know well what would be good for others

and so that felt like another territory

that felt rich.

>> Yeah. Yeah, I think centering the human

experience in an age of advanced

technologies um is an investment that we

should definitely uh be doubling down

on. And yeah, and again that does mean

introducing kids to these ideas, to

these technologies um but then bringing

it back to to the human to just kind of

the core fundamentals. I mean I think

history, ethics, philosophy, these are

subjects that become more important the

more advanced and technical our

societies get. And and like you

mentioned earlier, uh you know, the

computer scientists learning today are

going to be the future tech tycoons um

of tomorrow. And so what can we be

teaching them to create more ethical AI

and f you know exponential technologies

that are good for people that are

designed in a way that is good for

society. And so I think that's a really

hopeful message that we are in that

moment now where that next generation of

builders are kind of we have that

opportunity to kind of coach them and um

help them ask the right questions and

design for the good of society.

>> Yeah. I don't think I could have said it

better myself.

>> Yeah. Um so actually a bit of a a segue

into

the question of just ethics in this

space more broadly. Um and and actually

maybe before we kind of like dive into

some some of those areas uh what do we

think of kind of the role of the

educator in in all of this and um how

does that shift? So let's say in in you

know um in a great situation where

you've got AI ch AI tutor that is you

know the the entire re entire reimagined

um approach that you mentioned where you

have an AI tutor that's giving you

adaptive learning personalized and all

of that. Um what is the role of the

educator and all of that?

>> Uh I think that that's going to evolve

the more these pilots and the more the

studies come through. uh the different

positioning that the educator takes. So

whether that's um deep expertise in some

areas which will be vital um whether

that's uh facilitating the the right

questions to ask the right way to think

about material and the right way to

think about learning. Uh I think the

role of the educator stays deeply

coupled with kids understanding and

knowing how to learn. Uh and that is

what education was supposed to be for uh

learning. And so I think it it goes back

to that. Uh we've become we've

redesigned education to prepare people

for work. Um and I think we need to move

towards preparing people for life. Um

but the the educator still stays central

to that process. I mean I don't think

many people would want to send their

kids to a school with 95 robots and no

people. I don't think that's the future

that uh we're all aiming for.

>> Right. So I guess in in in some of these

kind of very innovative models like

Alpha School where it's two hours of

intensive personalized learning with an

AI tutor, the rest of the day is all

about human connection with teachers and

instructors and and guides that help

kind of uncover the passion of that

student and help to nurture it and um

help them to have the confidence to kind

of uh deliver on that. But with that

wanted to touch on you know the ethics

of this space a bit more.

>> Yeah and this is something we have to

really think carefully about uh

artificial intelligence data and

children. Uh that's already um a deeply

questionable intersection and ethics

appears in a few ways. So the first is

what data are these AI systems going to

be collecting when it comes to children?

are parents aware and did they give

consent or are we just kind of rushing

AI tools into class and what can be

interpreted from the data that gets

collected on children. So we want to

know where their stamina is on math. Uh

we don't want to interpret other

emotional cues unless we have figured

out how to do that safely with parent

consent. Uh so that's one area that I

think we need to to really understand.

The second is the strange way bias shows

up in AI systems. We often think about

facial recognition and the cases where

we know it uh more intimately. But there

are unique ways that AI can make

predictions about you when you interact

with it and then change the level of of

advice that it gives you or how well it

performs for you based on what it knows

about you. So there was a study done um

using most of the most famous AI systems

uh and it showed that when you asked the

AI systems about African-Americans, it

gave all great positive reviews. When

you gave the AI system uh an example of

text that had more traditional

African-American English in it and ask

the AI systems questions about that

user, the AI system would say, "Oh, this

person's never going to go anywhere. Uh

I can't even imagine a job for them.

They'll be in lowwage jobs." Picture

this in education. the AI system detects

somebody has this kind of ethnic

background or is this gender and then

gives the the teacher worse feedback on

that student uh in terms of assessments

or gives the student worse advice in

problem solving because it has already

made a prediction that that student is

not going to go anywhere in life. So

these are the more subtle ways we have

to apply foresight to ethics or ethics

and and foresight in in academia. And

I'd say the final thing that we're going

to have to watch out for, and we saw

this with social media after the fact,

is the relationships kids are going to

build with these systems. We are now

giving kids access to an infinite,

neverending opportunity to engage with

an imaginary friend, something that is

always on, can answer all of their

questions. That is a recipe for a new

type of addiction. And we have to really

be looking out for this. uh we kind of

missed the boat on smartphones and now

we're all trying to get them back out of

the classrooms. We can see this line of

sight directly with AI systems and chat

bots. Uh and this isn't of course all on

educators. This has to come to you know

tech companies how we design these

systems agegating them. But something to

look out for is this kind of new

addiction that might form between kids

and chat bots and that is not going to

end up well and do our best to bring

parents on board with that. So even if

that's at parent teacher interviews just

casually saying look out for the amount

of time your kid spends chatting with a

chatbot I noticed they were a little bit

more disengaged in class that could be

where uh so this is another area that we

have to apply foresight too but we can

see that line of sight happening quite

clearly if we don't intervene

>> yeah in in a similar way that we've been

talking about you know parents and

learners having that visibility into

their own data and kind of um their

performance and how engaged they are

with their work. Should there be a case

where everybody has that visibility into

the relationships with these chat bots?

Where do you think that line can be

drawn? But I feel like if there is that

visibility, then people can be a little

bit more relaxed. But then is that

>> Yeah, I would say that question needs to

be answered by a psychiatrist and a

psychologist. That is why these are

multiddisiplinary conversations. We need

to bring everybody to the board. um an

addiction or a relationship with an with

a chatbot shouldn't be something that

kids download in the app store. Um so

psychologists, psychiatrists, doctors, I

welcome you to this conversation because

we need your voice in it. It can't just

be happening out of Silicon Valley. It

can't just be left to parents to deal

with on their own. Everybody needs to

come to the table. We saw what happened

with social media. We don't have to do

that social experiment again.

So well said. Okay, we're going to take

some questions here. This one's from

Rob. How do you see AI increasing the

digital divide especially in underserved

communities in developing nations and

how do we as leaders stop this cycle

and we can see that general purpose

technologies build on each other right

so the communities that didn't get equal

access to electricity they're the

communities that don't get that are

struggling with the digital divide and

then there will be an AI divide uh that

is why that first pillar that I

discussed AI as a hard skill teaching

kids how to use artificial intelligence

how to prompt it, how to use it safely

is vital because that may be the only

opportunity kids get access to these AI

systems. So that's why it's not pushing

AI out of schools. Um it's being very

careful about adjusting how kids learn

with AI, but making sure we build AI as

a hard skill is absolutely vital in

schools and in education. When it comes

to the broader world, uh this is a

question that nation states are facing

urgently. um making sure there are

things like sovereign AI that every

country get gets access to computing

power, the opportunity to build the STEM

skills within their population uh to

adopt these technologies. Uh that is a

global conversation um that's also

happening against a very geopolitically

uncertain time. Um but it's a really

important question and unfortunately I

wouldn't be able to answer it in in in

30 seconds.

>> Yeah. And I don't know just to add

something just small to that in a way

could AI introduce to everyone because

everyone's got a smartphone regardless

of their socioeconomic situation if if

if students aren't taught how to use it

and just over rely on it and you know

that could be um some at a disadvantage.

Uh let's take another question. Um,

we're aware that AI cannot replace

inerson instructors, but will it and

should it replace the online

asynchronous instructors

in higher ed?

>> I'm not exactly sure what you what is

meant by this question.

>> Yeah, I guess um I how I interpret this

question is so we know the value of

in-person instruction and the need for

that human connection. There are other

modalities of learning. Some is kind of

like on demand learning and then you've

got some which is like live synchron

sort of synchronous but digital. Um

my um thought on that is I think when

content is pre-recorded maybe that's not

the best use of a teacher's time to have

sat in front of a camera and kind of

read through all of that content

themselves. Maybe that is a scenario

where you can outsource that to an

avatar or an AI in a different format

that is proven to be more personalized

and adaptive. And I would imagine that

any human to human interaction that's

focused on human connection is good

whether that's in person or has to be um

online. And I think that there's also

something interesting here and we

actually don't know that the answer to

this question but if you're taking say a

physics class online what now happens

when the physics teacher is also now

powered by these supercomputers and how

their perspective on physics changes and

how they see the world and then getting

access to that person in addition to the

AI. So this the the answer I think the

jury is still out on how that would

unfold specifically as it relates to

online learning.

>> Yeah, absolutely. And you know there are

um you know I work with a company that

creates AI twins for experts and what's

going to happen next is that experts

expertise that they trade on they own

their expertise but they're going to be

able to enrich that expertise with real

time data that they choose to bring in.

And so you know would you speak to that

real expert or would you speak to that

expert's AI twin? Well, in some cases it

might be advantageous to speak to the AI

twin. Even though the expert, you know,

the real in-person experience, you can

have, you know, much more creative

conversations. There might be scenarios

where the AI twin is actually more

valuable in that for certain contexts. I

think tackling the last one is

interesting. What are the pros and cons

of developing skills for prompts when

using AI? It is becoming critical for a

career. How will it impact social

skills? Um, so the pros are the more you

understand how to direct an artificial

intelligence system, the better response

uh and access to the how the AI kind of

processes that data you'll get. Um, so

that I think is very helpful. Another

pro is teaching people how to process

what is in their mind and formulate that

into a question that can lead to some

response. The con I see is that we end

up refining all of our ideas and

knowledge and optimizing it for

algorithms. So how algorithms we have we

will become optimization engines for

algorithms and I don't think that's the

world that we want to get into. I think

it's there are unique advantages that

artificial intelligence provides and how

it interprets data and there are unique

advantages to how humans approach data

and we don't want to make our approach

to thinking optimized for artificial

intelligence. We want AI to be optimized

for us. Um and so I think that that

would be the con. I think that that this

is going to be only a temporary

challenge uh as as we're seeing the kind

of nature and the science of prompting

is continuously evolving and eventually

it will turn to be much more

conversational. So the way you talk to

your colleague or you talk to your

teacher or your friend, you'll be able

to engage with AI in that way. But that

still means communication is absolutely

vital. Understanding how to share your

ideas and that isn't something that we

always center in education. uh but being

able to vocalize your ideas, refine your

refine what the knowledge that you have

uh in a way that's easy to understand

and to interpret uh for the general

public and not just for AI uh but will

be vital in the future.

>> Yeah. And I think as AIs become better

at prompting themselves and all of that,

you know, well, where does the human go?

The human needs to go deeper. They need

to get more creative. Like what is what

are these prompts even about? What is it

that I'm trying to achieve? What could I

achieve? And so I think that trajectory

is a positive one for humans. Like how

do you dig a deeper into your human

ingenuity because all of these things

can be handled for you. And so I think

that's a a net positive for you know

using AI kind of in in the right way. I

know that so there's a question that's

received the most likes and I wonder

why. What occurs when the US Department

of Education is demolished

and how do we move forward to make sure

all states receive equal AI education?

And I think this goes back to the first

question.

Investing in children's future

is an investment in national interest.

They are fundamentally coupled. So if

you want to talk economic strength,

economic security and national security,

you are inherently talking about the

success of the next generation. Uh so I

am not involved in how this is being

dismantled but I really hope um we are

prioritizing and centering children and

their ability to self-actualize and

reach the maximum capabilities that they

can in the decisions that are made

because that is going to be deeply

coupled uh with the longevity and state

continuity. So they can't be they can't

be decoupled. And that's why I say

education is a national security issue.

They need to be in the same room.

So these are fantastic questions. Um I

did want to leave just a couple of

minutes uh for Chenade to share just

some final rounding thoughts on this

last day of South by Southwest edu on AI

and the future of education.

Um well, first of all, just a a a major

shout out to teachers because this is an

incredibly complex time and they are

dealing with the most prize prized asset

on the planet, which is children. Uh so

this is I mean I think that they don't

get enough credit for the moment that

they're navigating.

Uh and and I think something to

remember. We're going to continue to

hear about advanced artificial

intelligence systems, quantum computing,

space, all of these deeply technical

advancements, but some of the most

important skills have nothing to do with

the technology. Um, and even for for

parents, it's not being able to navigate

an iPad passively at five that will

dictate whether your child will do well

in the future. If you said, you know, my

child doesn't really like working on the

iPad, but she's reading four books a

day. She loves her sports teams. She

wants to spend too much time at the

park. I would say that child is going to

thrive in the future. So even though

there's a lot of pressure to adapt to

this moment, remember it is the

non-technical skills that we need to be

centering because we are preparing kids

for a future we cannot see, which means

we have to prepare them for anything

regardless of the way technology

evolves.

And on that note, I think we will close.

Thank you for being an absolutely

fantastic audience. What impact do you

think AI will have on the workforce? And

do you think we are headed for an

identity crisis?

>> And this is the question that's

fascinating about AI. What else can I

become? Very few people have the courage

to ask that question. Why? Because they

look in the mirror in the morning and

they see an engineer or a doctor. They

don't see a person.

>> If they're not looking at artificial

intelligence and asking, "What are we

going to become with this technology?"

Would you say it's the beginning of the

end for