AI or JI?

As a rule, when writing for Brimmer’s weekly Bulletin, I try to limit the number of “I”s present in the text. However, with this piece, I am going to break that rule in a brief discourse on my feelings about AI. Yes, my feelings, and not my reasoned analysis of its compounding imminence, usefulness to humankind, or impact on the world. I am just going to state how it makes me feel about tackling a creative writing adventure: in a word, unsatisfied.

 

A note to the reader: I am writing this piece without using any AI. It is coming straight out of my own head, and I am not even going to offer researched support in this argument as I often do when writing on education or broader topics. I do feel it’s always good to have authoritative research and valid data at one’s back when presenting one’s argument, but I am forswearing that here. This musing is based entirely on a gut feeling and what I have learned in my life. This approach may lead you to rightfully stop reading at this point. I wouldn’t blame you. But I wish to tell you that I am writing this way because I want to feel the satisfaction gained from creating something out of my own head (or in other instances from creating a response to another’s ideas which I have spun around in my mind and offered my own take; this is satisfying as well). I want—maybe even need?—to be in the creative moment.

 

Nothing against technology here—I am using a laptop computer to write this, which is so much better than chipping this out of stone, driving pen over paper, or hammering on a typewriter (and making endless use of correction tape!) On the other hand, I would be very happy to collaborate with a colleague, in a creative moment—that activity is thoroughly satisfying as well; I live for a good intellectual collaboration and seeing a broad smile on a colleague’s face. It’s the social animal being sustained in me; and we are social beings.

 

Aside: Strangely, considerations of the use of AI bring to my mind rudimentary and perhaps random thoughts on economic theory. I think of Adam Smith’s postulate in The Wealth of Nations that when people pursue their own self-interest (satisfaction?) and, somehow, with the help of an “invisible hand,” the whole of society benefits! That’s a providential communion. Note that Smith was pre-eminently a moral philosopher and less an economist, so it makes sense that his philosophical bent had a hand in his economic analysis (pun intended). And Karl Marx comes to mind as well. Marx developed the idea of communism, but his theorizing fell short of practical application because he used the lens of economic determinism and kind of left out the social animal piece of humanity in his thinking and in real life mainly, and ironically, those with a Hobbesian-world view have tried to implement his ideas and have constructed communism-in-name-only totalitarian states. Sustenance gained through equanimitous economic opportunity for all is an idea that could be satisfying to the stomach but omits a whole lot of other satisfaction that adds meaning to our lives. But I digress.

 

I am not feeling the social satisfaction from AI in its current state, which I acknowledge will be useful to me when I need to complete more routine tasks, ones that require less of my own creativity and generally don’t offer the same level of satisfaction for creativity or engender the same sense of accomplishment. These “get-it-done-effectively" tasks are akin to bolting the seats into a new car but could include something like writing a report summarizing our teacher’s professional development initiatives. I would feel great satisfaction in seeing the studies and programs our teachers had undertaken for their professional growth, but the report could be a pro forma information vehicle…so a robot helping to make another vehicle?

 

But what about my students? Could I lead them astray by feeling like this? I teach 13 juniors and seniors in International Relations, and it is definitely my job to prepare them for their future studies and thoughtful, successful lives. Would my feelings about AI impede my preparing them for the present and future world, which has AI and which by definition will get "AI-er"? That would be an unsatisfying failure for me as a teacher. Therefore, we will learn about and experiment a bit with AI in IR class  to discover its abilities and usefulness, e.g., develop a policy for Canada to pursue as the polar ice continues to melt and trade routes open up in new territorial waters, and compare it with a policy suggested by an AI engine. There is so much to learn and understand about the world across all disciplines, so many skills to be developed and used effectively, so many ideas to wrestle with—and AI is one of them, so we’ll see how it works for our study of international politics, both as students and thinkers. We’ll grapple with the technical, the practical, the ethical, and if I can help with this, that will be very satisfying as well. While the jury may still be out on my efforts to date, I do seek to help make the world a better place as well as find some satisfaction for myself in my vocation. I have found a great deal of satisfaction working with the students, faculty, staff, parents and guardians who I have had the privilege of getting to know at Brimmer and May School.

 

And come January, when the School hosts the Bissell Grogan Symposium for students in grades 8 - 12, we'll all have the opportunity to examine the uses and impact of AI on our current and future lives. This year's Symposium will offer a Keynote presentation by Dr. Raja-Elie Abdulnour P '29 and 10 workshops on the use of AI in art, writing, medicine, information/disinformation, and a range of other topics. The Symposium will be a boon to our understanding and provide an opportunity to learn about the "force of robot" that is sweeping the tech and non-tech world at the same time. Having this opportunity to learn is very satisfying indeed.