I love this! Thanks for articulating so clearly the middle ground of AI use...that seems to be the best way forward in a world that has already invested so heavily in AI. However, I do feel like the third insight about using AI to prepare for human connection is so tricky...a real balancing act. I worry that individuals who use AI for that social support (even with the goal of preparing them for real human connection) will find that the AI support feels good enough, a tool with immediate upsides and no obvious drawbacks. I really want to subscribe to that approach, but it does feel a little slippery.
A balancing act is right! And a fine line between AI for rehearsal vs AI for replacement.
I think we are coming to see finding that boundary to both be a skill/capacity/desire that we need to cultivate in ourselves AND a responsibility of tech to be designed in ways that make that easier (ie removing the prompts that keep you engaged on AI, helping you see the benefits of going off to ask a human for another opinion). Without both, it does feel like swimming up stream.
Curious if you've found ways to dip your toe in using it for these purposes without crossing over the line?
We are building tools at my work (WGU Labs) that are getting at some of the prosocial uses of AI, but it's still tricky, especially when the tools do not often build in parameters or off ramps. And this isn't new or unique to AI...I think this is the kind of balancing act we all face with technology generally.
As someone that has worked on research about the outcome of AI in Education, I appreciate the additional layer on learning with AI. And I'm curious how this insight will be used in the classrooms in the future.
"The implication was startling: peer learning is high-risk, high-reward. When it works, nothing beats it. When it doesn’t, you might be better off with a chatbot." Super interesting. It made me think of professional discrepancies between the quality of managers and how often companies don't provide training in how to provide quality feedback and career guidance. This suggests school group projects could benefit from some formalized training on how to collaborate for those that it doesn't come as naturally to or who may be more reserved in challenging ideas and asking questions to provide higher value engagements. Some people are naturally great at collaboration or providing feedback (or get more practice) but it shouldn't be assumed everyone is.
Such a good analogy. There are so many spaces in our world where we put people together with the expectation that they'll be able to reap the benefits of collaboration or support without tending to the foundational skills needed to unlock that. With AI as another "coworker" in the mix, it runs the risk of further deprioritizing that skill unless we opt for another path.
Brillant framing on the risk/reward dynamic of peer learning. The insight about productive disagreemnt versus surface-level agreeableness really clarifies why some collaborations feel empty. In my experience facilitating group work, the hardest part is creating psychological safety where disagreement doesn't feel like rejection. When people trust each other enough to say "wait, what if we approached this differently" without fear of social fallout, that's when real learning happens.
So motivating! "The first opportunity is rebuilding these conditions: creating spaces where people practice productive disagreement, teaching the skills of social curiosity, modeling what it looks like to stay engaged through friction. This means schools, families, communities actively designing opportunities for collaborative problem-solving with real stakes. It means adults demonstrating repair after rupture. It means making curiosity about others’ thinking a skill we deliberately cultivate."
Wonderful refections on this experiment highlighting a need for strengthening our youth social health. Disagreement is part of natural human " conflict" which is in essence a growth factor ; debating.... and what is mentioned as " growing curiosity for someone's else way of thinking and perceiving "an idea differently is at the core of social learning. Now how do we encourage the practice of respectful disagreement anchored in a growth mindset ?
I love this! Thanks for articulating so clearly the middle ground of AI use...that seems to be the best way forward in a world that has already invested so heavily in AI. However, I do feel like the third insight about using AI to prepare for human connection is so tricky...a real balancing act. I worry that individuals who use AI for that social support (even with the goal of preparing them for real human connection) will find that the AI support feels good enough, a tool with immediate upsides and no obvious drawbacks. I really want to subscribe to that approach, but it does feel a little slippery.
A balancing act is right! And a fine line between AI for rehearsal vs AI for replacement.
I think we are coming to see finding that boundary to both be a skill/capacity/desire that we need to cultivate in ourselves AND a responsibility of tech to be designed in ways that make that easier (ie removing the prompts that keep you engaged on AI, helping you see the benefits of going off to ask a human for another opinion). Without both, it does feel like swimming up stream.
Curious if you've found ways to dip your toe in using it for these purposes without crossing over the line?
We are building tools at my work (WGU Labs) that are getting at some of the prosocial uses of AI, but it's still tricky, especially when the tools do not often build in parameters or off ramps. And this isn't new or unique to AI...I think this is the kind of balancing act we all face with technology generally.
As someone that has worked on research about the outcome of AI in Education, I appreciate the additional layer on learning with AI. And I'm curious how this insight will be used in the classrooms in the future.
"The implication was startling: peer learning is high-risk, high-reward. When it works, nothing beats it. When it doesn’t, you might be better off with a chatbot." Super interesting. It made me think of professional discrepancies between the quality of managers and how often companies don't provide training in how to provide quality feedback and career guidance. This suggests school group projects could benefit from some formalized training on how to collaborate for those that it doesn't come as naturally to or who may be more reserved in challenging ideas and asking questions to provide higher value engagements. Some people are naturally great at collaboration or providing feedback (or get more practice) but it shouldn't be assumed everyone is.
Such a good analogy. There are so many spaces in our world where we put people together with the expectation that they'll be able to reap the benefits of collaboration or support without tending to the foundational skills needed to unlock that. With AI as another "coworker" in the mix, it runs the risk of further deprioritizing that skill unless we opt for another path.
This is a great idea! Does anyone know of some good resources for fostering productive disagreement in the classroom?
Yes! Check out PLATO's Toolkit: https://www.plato-philosophy.org/teachertoolkit/, Teach Different: https://teachdifferent.com/ and exercises in Experience Inquiry: https://www.amazon.com/Experience-Inquiry-Strategies-Experiences-Essentials/dp/1544317123
Brillant framing on the risk/reward dynamic of peer learning. The insight about productive disagreemnt versus surface-level agreeableness really clarifies why some collaborations feel empty. In my experience facilitating group work, the hardest part is creating psychological safety where disagreement doesn't feel like rejection. When people trust each other enough to say "wait, what if we approached this differently" without fear of social fallout, that's when real learning happens.
Love that addition to the equation -- human to human > human to AI when there is curiosity + disagreement + the trust to support both.
So motivating! "The first opportunity is rebuilding these conditions: creating spaces where people practice productive disagreement, teaching the skills of social curiosity, modeling what it looks like to stay engaged through friction. This means schools, families, communities actively designing opportunities for collaborative problem-solving with real stakes. It means adults demonstrating repair after rupture. It means making curiosity about others’ thinking a skill we deliberately cultivate."
Brilliant! Thank you both!
Wonderful refections on this experiment highlighting a need for strengthening our youth social health. Disagreement is part of natural human " conflict" which is in essence a growth factor ; debating.... and what is mentioned as " growing curiosity for someone's else way of thinking and perceiving "an idea differently is at the core of social learning. Now how do we encourage the practice of respectful disagreement anchored in a growth mindset ?