The AI-in-education conference circuit – what are the vibes?
Reflections from a recent road trip
And we’re back!
Wait, you didn’t notice I was gone? Bygones. I’ve been on the conference circuit for the past two weeks to discuss – wait for it – the role of AI in education. And in fact I’ll be in New York City next week to debate this very same subject at the EdTechWeek conference. So on that note…
If you are attending EdTechWeek on October 8 in NYC, why not attend my debate with Alex Kotran of aiEDU at 1pm? And if you’d like to meet up in person, please shoot me an email at info@cognitiveresonance.net – I’ll be around on October 8 and 9, trying to not break out in hives.
Ok, back to my recent speaking engagements and my read on the AI-in-education vibes. The first event took place in Colorado at something amusingly called EduFish (hence the picture up top) and involved a variety of edu-folks brought together by Bellwether Education Partners. The second took place at something hilariously called “the Multiversity” in Silicon Valley – great venue, honestly – and was hosted by Reach Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in ed-tech startups.
Yes, dear reader, I was deep in the belly of the beast. And, unexpectedly, these two events offer an interesting compare-and-contrast regarding the “state of the discourse” around the promise and the pitfalls of using AI for educational ends.
Starting with EduFish…I was on a panel to discuss AI with a handful of folks I won’t name because it wasn’t entirely clear whether the event was public or private…and because I’m about to be mean to them again. I say that because in the span of 90 minutes I heard just about every cliché I’ve been hearing from personalized-learning enthusiasts for the past decade repeated ad nauseum. One panelist in particular enthusiastically gushed about AI in a way that evidenced he had minimal understanding of how the technology actually works – which is not only annoying but dangerous, given that this person sits on a state board of education.
I don’t normally get frustrated on panels, in fact I thrive on a good debate, but maybe that was what set me off – productive discourse involves grappling with tradeoffs, understanding history, and thinking critically. Instead, I heard a lot of nonsensical platitudes. As a friend later told me over dinner, “the disdain was visible on your face.” Sorry not sorry.
As you might imagine, the EduFish experience made me feel somewhat…apprehensive…about attending an event hosted by an ed-tech venture capital firm investing and attended by the founders of ed-tech startups, many (most?) of which are premised on AI in some form or fashion. And yet, much to my surprise, what I found talking to actual education entrepreneurs is that they are much more realistic about the strengths and benefits of AI. These are folks who are actually grappling with the technology, and perhaps because of this, they seemed far more clear-eyed about the tradeoffs it entails than so many edu-political and philanthropic “thought leaders.”
Not everyone, of course. On the second night of the Reach Capital event, I debated Niels Hoven, who is a trying to build a company to accelerate the academic achievement of gifted kids through personalization and AI, or something. Hoven’s a nice guy but that didn’t stop me from pointing out the many, many flaws I see in his vision, ranging from the lack of scientific grounding to the uniquely American obsession with individualizing everything rather than focusing on building solidarity. Things got spicy.
And, luckily for you, it was recorded for The Disagreement podcast so in a few weeks you can judge for yourself who “won.” (I did.) I don’t want to give away anything but suffice to say I had some choice and possibly career-ending words for one prominent education philanthropist who is facing increasingly withering criticism. I also found it refreshing that after this debate, multiple founders sought me out to continue the conversation and in many instances to affirm my central point, namely, that the process of education is a uniquely human endeavour. Indeed, one CEO later emailed me and said he was proud to hear me “represent the human side,” and that is indeed what I see myself advocating for – humans. Seems strange that I even need to, but these are the times we live in.
I’ll wrap things up here with a preview of what’s coming next week: An extraordinarily long essay that was commissioned nearly a year ago by an academic center, then put through a form of mini-peer review, and then…spiked by the academic center, for reasons. Did it set back the launch of Cognitive Resonance by several months? Yes. Am I bitter? Only a little. Will I name names? Maybe. But maybe not. I’m trying to project good vibes.
POST-PUBLICATION UPDATE: I’m told some think I am throwing shade above at my good friend Andy Rotherham of Bellwether, who sits on a state board of education – no! Not even a little bit, in fact Andy’s actually been incredibly helpful to Cognitive Resonance’s efforts and has been resisting ed-tech overhype for a long time.
Thank you so much for this great share!
I don't disagree, so much hype and as you say 'overhype' for such a long time, it's almost like this industry has a vested interest in pushing the narrative! ;)