I recently talked to a group of university educators concerned about students by constantly using AI in their educational activities. They feared that students – a future generation of industry workers – become too dependent on AI. The main question was: should we try to intervene? (See Owoc et al., 2019 for a discussion.)
Although the question is complex, I will suggest a way of seeing it, which, I hope, reflects a more balanced vision on the implications of our daily use of AI. The idea is to see AI in the same way that we consider any technology that has appeared in the past and has made a “Kuhnian” revolution (Kuhn, 1997) in our way of living and thinking.
Consider the printing press: the criticisms feared that it overwhelmed society with underestimated ideas and undermines the learned authority. Radio has faced a backlash for distracting families and the spread of sensationalism. Television has long been accused of eroding the durations of attention and critical thinking (perhaps for good reasons). Finally, and above all, the Internet and smartphones – perhaps the last great technological revolution before the LLMS – caused debates on overload of information and damage to social media (Carr, 2020).
My point is that it is not the type of technology that makes your mind clearer or duller – this is the way you get involved with it. Take the Internet: in developed countries, everyone has access to it. It is even difficult to imagine the amount of useful information on the internet. Some maintain that this equality of internet accessibility should also lead to chance of equality for learning (HAQ et al., 2023, p. 76). However, intelligence and expertise vary considerably (not due to an inherent IQ, but in the way knowledge is continued and applied). For what? Again, I think it strongly depends on how people use technology.
Some people use the Internet to find excellent resources, databases, books, educational videos, etc. Other people use the Internet to scroll Tiktok and watch cat videos. So, with regard to modern chatbots, I believe that the same story applies here. It is not at AI that you become smarter or more stupid by using it – it’s up to you. Let me show you how with an example.
Example n ° 1: use of AI which hinders creativity and the agency
Suppose that a person is a human resources manager in a company, and must create an event improving the well-being of colleagues. The person inserts him in a chatbot: “I am director of human resources in [company name]. Design a two-hour event for the team of software engineers that will improve their well-being. Provide me a detailed plan for the event with horodatages and concrete descriptions of activities. “”
As you can see in this example, all creative activities are outsourced to the chatbot. Yes, the person will probably perform the task quickly and effectively. But what is the value of their professional growth (assuming they want to grow, of course)? It is not a question of accomplishment of tasks, it is a question of development. So how could you use the LLM without sacrificing your creativity and your agency?
My answer is: “By resisting the temptation to receive ready -to -use responses and solutions.” For me, one of the main beneficial characteristics of LLMS is that they can provide advice that align with your specific context.
For centuries, methods and Socratic questioning have fueled critical thinking and intellectual growth (Zare and Mukundan, 2015). Today, LLMS offer a free and tireless “training partner” to probe your ideas, refine your reasoning and eliminate weak concepts before failing in the real world (Laak and Aru, 2024). How, then, can our HR manager use LLMS to improve their creativity and their agency instead of blundering them?
Example n ° 2: use of AI which promotes creativity and the agency
The HR manager inserts him in a chatbot: “I am director of human resources in [company name]Responsible for designing and directing a two-hour event to improve the well-being of the software engineers team. Guide my apprenticeship and my planning. I will ask basic questions about well-being programs and strategies and what makes them effective, but do not give me direct solutions or specific plans. Instead, use clear and stimulating questions to help me develop my own ideas, criticize my suggestions by emphasizing potential gaps and make sure that your answers promote my independence, my creativity and my curiosity. »»
At the end of the process, the human resources manager in the second example will undoubtedly develop considerably as a professional, despite his appearance on AI for support. This case illustrates how the impact of AI can vary considerably depending on its application.
A guide, not a problem of problems
Some people argue that the restriction of the use of students is necessary to prevent intellectual laziness and ensure that they acquire essential skills (YU, 2023). I do not agree. The AI revolution is unstoppable and the ban on its use is futile. There is another approach, a more provocative, perhaps. I say to my students: “Please use AI (if you wish). But use it not to replace your own brain-use it to amplify your learning in a way that is impossible. Instead of using it as an answer and problem, use it as a personal tutor, a Socratic opponent, an impartial argument analyst or a guide proximal. “
This is similar to a parent who solves a problem for a child capable of attacking him alone, which hinders their development. A good parent, rather, identifies the child’s proximal development area (Vygotsky, 1978) and pushes them on this subject. Likewise, you can use AI as a bad parent that solves your problems and takes your development of you, or as a mentor that helps you identify places to go and grow yourself.
