Lesson 2

Read this article: https://aiandeducation.mit.edu/report/

especially this paragraph: 'Leaning into learning means creating a new “social contract” between teachers and students. All of us who teach at MIT will need to be prepared to help students understand both that the process of education is necessarily a productive struggle, and that the most important product of their education is not a GPA or a diploma but themselves: their personal growth and intellectual maturity and the development of their own imagination, insight, and judgment'.

then reflect: What does it mean to you, as a collective?

Struggle in learning cannot and should not be completely eliminated by AI. Some difficulties are an important part of learning, such as thinking independently, making mistakes, correcting them, and trying to understand again. However, not all struggles are valuable. For example, AI can help with looking up basic definitions, fixing grammar, or organizing information. This can reduce some “low-value struggles” and give students more time for things that actually require thinking.The key question, is not whether AI is used, but which part of learning AI is replacing. Using AI to explain a concept, challenge our reasoning, or point out something we missed can support learning. However, asking AI for a complete answer before trying to think about the problem may replace the learning process itself.For example, students and teachers need to have a shared understanding of where this line is. Students have a responsibility not to let AI replace their own thinking, while teachers should make their expectations about AI clear and consider how assignments can better reflect students’ thinking process. In the age of AI, a good final product does not always mean deep understanding.(Yitong) Depending on how students use it, AI can be a powerful and competent assistance in terms of providing constructive feedback. For example, students may use it to clarify where exactly they are struggling and what kind of possible solutions they can have. AI should not be used as a versatile tool that gets straight to the answer but rather as an assistant that guides and enhances the learning process step by step.

Amina Dorjjigjid:

As a student, this "new social contract" means that we need to stop obsessing over whether AI is simply allowed and start being honest with ourselves about actually trying to learn something. The MIT paragraph really hit me because it reframes education as a productive struggle that shapes who we become, not just the grades we earn. It made me realize that if I let AI give me complete answers before I even try to work through a problem myself, I am not helping my own growth. At the same time, I think AI can be used for simple tasks like fixing grammar and organizing information. The important thing is that AI should not replace our own brains. Moreover, everyone has an important role to play. Teachers need to be clear about what they expect and design assignments for the thinking process, not just the final answer; at the same time, I also have to hold myself accountable and resist the urge to ask AI for the answer before I have even tried. The question to ask myself is not " Can I use AI" but instead " Am I using it to help me think or to think and solve my problems for me"? Overall, I think using AI responsibly is something we all have to learn. AI is going to be part of our education and future careers; we need to learn how to use it without becoming dependent on it

It is a growing issue that more and more people are beginning to rely on AI to think for them. With the leading media companies practically forcing AI down our throats at every turn, it's hard for people who take stances against it to avoid what it is feeding us. At the 100th Google search, it becomes difficult to not give in and just read what generated right there at the top of the page. In a world where AI is taking over and embedding itself into many different aspects of our lives, it is hard not to end up using it for certain things. Especially with the bar for efficiency constantly getting higher and higher, some professions force its use in order to simply keep up with everyone else. It is there that I feel MIT is embracing its usefulness, while also acknowledging its very glaring side effects. And reconstructing each program to teach students how they might be able to use it effectively whilst discouraging and monitoring the developed reliance serves to maintain student's ability to use what they have at their disposal without losing their ability to think critically. In the section "2.7. Augmentation not automation", MIT lists the possible side effects of a reliance on AI chatbots, including "diminishing critical thinking, weakening memory, eroding confidence, and undermining mastery." But teaching how to work around that and use AI as a tool and not a brain, can keep students thinking for themselves. (Anson)

I agree with Amina and Yitong that using AI is not always harmful for students. For example, AI can reduce the time needed to check grammar. Students should not limit their future career by depending on AI and neglect their skills that industries demand. This article was interesting because it shows MIT's position as a leader in AI. Although students tend to use AI to get higher GPA with less effort, it will be better to use AI as a supporter of learning effectively.

Misaki Kasahara: I understood "social contract" between students and teachers as a relationship in which sharing expectations each other at platform of education. The part of "the most important product of their education is not GPA or a diploma but themselves" made me think deeply about how I should approach use of AI. Personally, I sometimes felt valueless for my small tasks, such as organizing information or guessing new words meaning, were taking time away from other important tasks or assignments. Therefore, I think using AI is meaningful to make these small tasks more efficient. At this point, the important point is AI does not do everything for us from organizing information to answering questions but instead replace with small tasks. At the same time, students should know their answers are valuable which will be respected. Moreover, teachers should indicate their boundaries about use of AI for their grades clearly and create productive assignments rather than simply giving students more work than they can handle. Therefore, both students and teachers will be expected for having meaning for their works. Students should have the reason why they do these assignments not just submitting them. Teachers should prioritize the quality and purpose of assignments over quantity of assignments.

Leander Plum: I definitely agree with the line of thinking that trying to answer a question directly with AI shouldn’t be our first resort. If we don’t even give ourselves the chance to answer a question on our own, that’s the first step toward making our own thinking and ourselves in general completely replaceable by AI.I am a big fan of AI and see it more as an opportunity than a threat. We need to learn today to adapt our work and learning to AI and to improve together with it. If we don’t keep up with the times and adapt to the changes and opportunities, we’ll eventually be left behind by other students or by the competition, because they’ve learned to work with AI rather than against it. Nevertheless, the desire for education and personal growth should always remain the greatest motivation. AI can relieve us of many tasks that merely take up time and require no real mental effort or human skills. It can automate processes and make our daily lives easier, giving us more time for tasks that actually require human knowledge and our individual contributions. Here’s my take on the idea of the social contract: Profs should clearly communicate the extent to which we are allowed to use AI and what is expected of us. In my opinion, a complete exclusion of artificial intelligence would be rather counterproductive. At the same time, it is each individual’s responsibility to complete assignments independently and with the goal of personal growth. Anyone who completely abdicates this responsibility and seeks to avoid their own learning should critically examine their personal goals for their studies.

Swara Deshpande: As a lot of my peers have mentioned, it is essential to recognize that AI inherently is not the problem faced within the education system. In education, we are taught how to approach a problem, think on our own, and try to come up with solutions to solve it. The blind free use of AI for solving problems without thinking on our own is the main problem the education system should focus on. Being the main "brains" of any solution and trying to understand critically is crucial as a learner. While AI can be used to aid and better understanding of the problem at hand, the final solution and thought should be our own. As mentioned earlier by most of the responses, it is unfeasible and almost impractical to abolish the use of AI in any field, including education for that matter. However, the consequences should occur when the individual learner stops aiding their growth and becomes reliant on AI for simple tasks. I feel the wording is quite apt that "the product of their education is not a GPA or a diploma but their personal growth and intellectual maturity", where it is the process of learning which makes an individual strong enough mentally to critically analyze all pieces of information we see online, especially in this era, where fake news and fabricated media has become so prevalent. When the individual does not respect the "social contract" in academic setting, they are hindering their own intellectual growth and potential to become more aware. Therefore, it is important for individuals to understand what they are risking when misusing or not agreeing to the contract.

Kana Fukumoto: The rise of AI is such a big wave we are facing and I have always felt like we, as students, need to take this problem seriously. As it was stated in the article and as my peers above have written, I also do not believe it is necessarily bad to use AI. If we use it right, it can be so useful and beneficial to our learnings. But at the same time, overreliance is often a problem. This article highlighted some of the most important actions both the institutions and students have to take in order to make sure that we are using AI in a way the we will not be losing what really matters. Especially, the backward design is something that every educator should adopt. As a student myself, I think many students understand that letting AI take over for their schoolwork is prohibited but they do not understand "why". It would be efficient to talk to them about the importance of using our own brains and creativity over trying to create "perfect" work done by AI, so they know reliance on AI is not allowed not just because it is the rule but it is for themselves. Also, assessing the process of understanding and not using unreliable AI detection would be very helpful. I personally have felt the anxiety of getting accused of AI generation when I created my own work with effort. Thus, shifting to value more of the communication would help me feel more motivated to connect with the faculty. In the article, the part "the most important product of their education is not a GPA or a diploma but themselves: their personal growth and intellectual maturity and the development of their own imagination, insight, and judgment" was impactful as I read it as a student. Sometimes, we forget why we go to school and why we receive education and lose motivation, which can also lead to reliance on AI. Remembering that school is so much more than just GPA or diploma, but rather it is about our own growth to build our own future will help us make the most of our student life.

Jaeson Alomar:

One thing about this MIT report is that it seems to treat education being transactional as a bad thing. Considering people are in college for their own reasons that vary greatly. Some people can be here purely for transactional reasons, social reasons, monetary reasons, etc. It assumes a desire for education, or even community through the traditional college experience. I don't think one way should be treated as more legitimate than the other, and that brings us to the use of AI. I think it is more obviously used currently due to the factor that was preexisting before AI, and that is the lack of desire to learn particular subjects and going to college for the benefits it gives in the future rather than the education itself. Though I do think this more hands-on approach of projects, discussions, and community-based assignments can provide learning even when the student has no particular interest in the subject. While learning I don't condone the heavy use of AI especially for your own work, and it feels like this is what this article is referencing to, but I believe it can be useful as a tool to ask smaller points of confusion, with the source provided, between studying that would otherwise be time consuming to ask a professor or peer. In that it could make studying more efficient.

Dillon Terrill

To be perfectly honest, both before but especially after reading this piece, I am of the strong opinion that the education system has not been functional in most countries for much longer than even computers have become standardized. Most, if not all, of the issues that are being complained about here and that people are lamenting about AI are almost identical to the issues that were posed when the digital revolution occurred. Many of the changes in "The Landscape" that are featured in this piece as well as many others are nearly identical to the issues that were being discussed when the computer was first being integrated into curriculums in the late 90s and early 2000s and, because they never fully figured out how to deal with the previous revolution, they were even more caught off guard by AI. The fact of the matter is that AI is not unique in its "disruptions" to the education system and the failure to adapt of the education system is a whole system failure caused, largely, by the centralization and standardization of education. The education systems of every developed nation on the planet are too focused on generalist teaching. Whether it be the General Education requirements of Universities or the teaching of unnecessary facts to students, the standardization of education created by the governmental regulatory bodies of every developed nation caused the issues present today. In previous generations, you only learned what was necessary for you to perform the jobs you needed or wanted to do, and you conducted research relevant to the fields by strict standards in the sciences especially. University especially was never meant to be a general education institution, but also, school was only there to teach you the basics you needed to function in the environment you would find yourself in. Primary education should still be only there to teach people how to be functional in society. Secondary education should still only be there to teach people a specific field that they will then work in. I think this article, as well as most others on the topics of AI and its relationship to education, are simply a means to obfuscate a problem of the modern education systems' own designs. For the past few decades, the number of people with secondary education degrees has exploded globally, and yet we find that, in nearly every metric, progress is grinding to a halt at an ever-increasing rate. This trend extends long before the advent of the AI we currently speak of. The uncomfortable question needs to be asked about all of this: why is it that, as "education" has become more available and accessible, technological and scientific advancement has slowed? When you analyze the data, it seems clear that, currently, we as a society prefer to see our names on a piece of paper that says we did something to actually having accomplished something or truly interrogated the world we live in. This isn't unique to the modern world. Credentialism has always been an issue in education and otherwise. However, the mistake that we keep making is thinking that credentialism is equivalent to intellectualism. AI has been integral in this discussion because it has completely shattered the illusions that we create when we think that we are intellectuals for simply getting a degree on a piece of paper. AI didn't start the fire. It was always burning. Doctors in any number of fields for decades have cheated, lied, and plagiarized simply so they could put "Dr." next to their name. When you place so much importance on credentials, titles, and other superficial marks, don't be surprised when people find ways to get around any perceived effort they is required to attain it.