Michael Rose is spot on with this - I could argue that all of AI, not just AI education is fundamentally a grift. But let me add: they have to justify those valuations, unfortunately. So they gonna keep grifting.
These AI companies raised massive funding at sky-high valuations based on promises of "transforming everything." Now they need revenue to justify those numbers, so they're aggressively pushing half-baked products into schools and claiming every update is the greatest thing and there are plenty of people online happy to push the narative.
School administrators are often non-technical and overwhelmed, making them perfect targets for flashy demos that promise to solve all their problems with one purchase. It's easier to buy a "solution" than address systemic issues like funding or teacher retention.
Many of these companies aren't even trying to make money from the software itself. They'll likely make more money from student data for future monetization, making schools the product rather than the customer.
Remember when tablets were going to revolutionize learning? VCs throw money at "disrupting education," founders pivot from other failed startups, and schools get stuck with expensive tools that gather dust.
Now schools are shifting AWAY from screens because kids can't focus on basic tasks - and we want to introduce tools that eliminate critical thinking entirely?
The people building these "intelligent" systems often can't solve basic educational problems like student engagement or critical thinking. They just want the $$$$. They're just automating the easy parts while ignoring what actually matters - the slow, difficult work of forming minds that Rose talks about here.
Michael, thank you for this insight. Unfortunately, while you, the Pope, and a lot of other really smart people see that AI is a potential threat to human integrity, the people and incentives that drive have no incentive to use ethics, logic, or application of any metric outside of the bottom line in charting their course. Like so many other modern scientific "advancements" AI's advocates insist on applying it to everything, even when it does harm (intellectual, material or moral), or provides no discernible good to individuals or society. Those of us who are not fully on board are considered luddites or "deniers."
Thank you for sharing this serious, large issue. Public education , and parents , jumped on this AI racket quite a while ago and our children are paying for it with a plethora of challenges. Thank you for being our voice against this quicksand.
Thanks Dad for sharing this one...
Michael Rose is spot on with this - I could argue that all of AI, not just AI education is fundamentally a grift. But let me add: they have to justify those valuations, unfortunately. So they gonna keep grifting.
These AI companies raised massive funding at sky-high valuations based on promises of "transforming everything." Now they need revenue to justify those numbers, so they're aggressively pushing half-baked products into schools and claiming every update is the greatest thing and there are plenty of people online happy to push the narative.
School administrators are often non-technical and overwhelmed, making them perfect targets for flashy demos that promise to solve all their problems with one purchase. It's easier to buy a "solution" than address systemic issues like funding or teacher retention.
Many of these companies aren't even trying to make money from the software itself. They'll likely make more money from student data for future monetization, making schools the product rather than the customer.
Remember when tablets were going to revolutionize learning? VCs throw money at "disrupting education," founders pivot from other failed startups, and schools get stuck with expensive tools that gather dust.
Now schools are shifting AWAY from screens because kids can't focus on basic tasks - and we want to introduce tools that eliminate critical thinking entirely?
The people building these "intelligent" systems often can't solve basic educational problems like student engagement or critical thinking. They just want the $$$$. They're just automating the easy parts while ignoring what actually matters - the slow, difficult work of forming minds that Rose talks about here.
Michael, thank you for this insight. Unfortunately, while you, the Pope, and a lot of other really smart people see that AI is a potential threat to human integrity, the people and incentives that drive have no incentive to use ethics, logic, or application of any metric outside of the bottom line in charting their course. Like so many other modern scientific "advancements" AI's advocates insist on applying it to everything, even when it does harm (intellectual, material or moral), or provides no discernible good to individuals or society. Those of us who are not fully on board are considered luddites or "deniers."
Thank you for sharing this serious, large issue. Public education , and parents , jumped on this AI racket quite a while ago and our children are paying for it with a plethora of challenges. Thank you for being our voice against this quicksand.