Skip to main content

AI and education, the questions not being asked

 


Selena Nemorin, Andreas Vlachidis, Hayford M. Ayerakwa, and Panagiotis Andriotis explore the hype surrounding AI in education and provide a horizon scan of the current discourse. 'AI hyped? A horizon scan of discourse on artificial intelligence in education (AIED) and development'.

This paper provides a horizon scan of the discourse surrounding artificial intelligence (AI) in education and development. The authors use text mining and thematic analysis to explore the hype surrounding AI in education and identify key themes that have emerged during the AIEd debate. The findings are categorized into three themes: geopolitical dominance through education and technological innovation, creation and expansion of market niches, and managing narratives, perceptions, and norms. The paper highlights the challenges of implementing AI in educational settings due to a lack of rigorous evidence supporting practical outcomes.

One of the key themes identified in the paper is geopolitical dominance through education and technological innovation. The authors suggest that AI in education could be used as a tool for countries to gain geopolitical power and influence. They argue that this could lead to new forms of colonialism, where powerful countries use their technological advantage to dominate and control other nations. The paper highlights the need for critical reflection on the potential implications of AI in education for global power dynamics.

The authors suggest that AI in education is being driven by market forces, with technology companies seeking to profit from the development and implementation of AI-powered educational tools. They also highlight the importance of managing public perceptions and narratives around AI in education, as these can shape policy decisions and funding priorities. 

It is of note, and concerning, that the debate around AI in education is being framed by many transnational institutions in the manner it is:

Positive rhetoric can be found in the discourse of global governance institutions. For instance, Audrey Azoulay, the Director-General of UNESCO (2019), claims: ‘Education will be profoundly transformed by AI … Teaching tools, ways of learning, access to knowledge, and teacher training will be revolutionized.

The authors note: 

At the core of many current AI-driven educational initiatives lies a computational understanding of education and learning that reduces student and teacher lifeworlds to sets of data logics that can be managed and understood. Underpinned by instrumental rationality and a desire for mechanisation and control of bare life (zoe), these processes of datafication (van Dijck, 2014) seek to make schooling as a lived practice knowable, predictable, and thereby governable. The datafication of education in discourse is aligned with positivist thinking and reductionist impulses. 

 AI-neurological methods of connecting students to techniques of measurement and addictive technologies are also pushing boundaries of bodily sovereignty in the sense that surveillant technologies are increasingly intruding into the integrity of the human body and fundamental human rights to cognitive freedom—the right to mental self-determination. All aspects of the child being measured to analyse and know its niche behaviours. Aspects of the child are then represented as educational and marketing materials and confined to a learning world that is decided upon by an artificial intelligence through strategies of personalisation.

I am reminded of when I was a researcher for the British Education Computing and Technology Association, where government at the time where obsessed with the education approaches being conducted in Singapore. Whilst Singapore, on first glance, had a 'celebrated' education system known for its robust curriculum and excellent results. It is also a system of keen competitiveness and high pressure, with a narrow curriculum designed specifically for employment and employers. AI poses various threats to education, with many, perhaps, unintended consequences, as was the case when seeking to impose a Singapore model upon a Western European education system. The quality of many papers exploring what these may be, is sadly lacking. This paper helps bridge that gap.

The authors conclude:

 At the heart of these AI tools and principles are how Western ideas are being superimposed on countries in the Global South evidenced by the aggressive policies and strategies being adopted to expand geopolitical dominance through AI. 

This seems to get to the heart of many questions AI poses to societies. 

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Whispers in the Machine: Why Prompt Injection Remains a Persistent Threat to LLMs

 Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly transforming how we interact with technology, offering incredible potential for tasks ranging from content creation to complex analysis. However, as these powerful tools become more integrated into our lives, so too do the novel security challenges they present. Among these, prompt injection attacks stand out as a particularly persistent and evolving threat. These attacks, as one recent paper (Safety at Scale: A Comprehensive Survey of Large Model Safety https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.05206) highlights, involve subtly manipulating LLMs to deviate from their intended purpose, and the methods are becoming increasingly sophisticated. At its core, a prompt injection attack involves embedding a malicious instruction within an otherwise normal request, tricking the LLM into producing unintended – and potentially harmful – outputs. Think of it as slipping a secret, contradictory instruction into a seemingly harmless conversation. What makes prompt inj...
Post a Comment
Read more

Podcast Soon Notice

I've been invited to make a podcast around the themes and ideas presented in this blog. More details will be announced soon. This is also your opportunity to be involved in the debate. If you have a response to any of the blog posts posted here, or consider an important issue in the debate around AGI is not being discussed, then please get in touch via the comments.  I look forward to hearing from you.
Post a Comment
Read more

AI Agents and the Latest Silicon Valley Hype

In what appears to be yet another grandiose proclamation from the tech industry, Google has released a whitepaper extolling the virtues of what they're calling "Generative AI agents". (https://www.aibase.com/news/14498) Whilst the basic premise—distinguishing between AI models and agents—holds water, one must approach these sweeping claims with considerable caution. Let's begin with the fundamentals. Yes, AI models like Large Language Models do indeed process information and generate outputs. That much isn't controversial. However, the leap from these essentially sophisticated pattern-matching systems to autonomous "agents" requires rather more scrutiny than the tech evangelists would have us believe. The whitepaper's architectural approaches—with their rather grandiose names like "ReAct" and "Tree of Thought"—sound remarkably like repackaged versions of long-standing computer science concepts, dressed up in fashionable AI clot...
Post a Comment
Read more