I was really disheartened to hear about OpenAI going the adult content route. It feels like a huge mistake. I can easily see this triggering backlash from state legislatures, school boards, and education leaders, which could lead to bans or restrictions on using OpenAI tools altogether.
It seems like a risky and short-sighted move. Now it’s going to sit in the same category as Meta’s LLM and Grok, which is just unfortunate.
And did you see that Sam Altman interview where he said scary things are going to happen. What is wrong with these tech guys? I honestly don’t get it.
I appreciate that you mention that a way out of this requires a willingness to be wrong. Adults (like students) need to remember that being wrong is a gift. When we are wrong, we have an opportunity to learn.
On the other hand, one of the worst things in life is to be wrong and to not know until it is too late.
Let's hope we don't find ourselves in the palm of that hand.
Thanks for this post, Stephen. Always appreciate your openness and willingness to share what you're doing and thinking as an educator.
I'm wondering how does the exploitation of human labor and the environmental costs of building and maintaining these AI tools factor in conversations about AI? Is there an ethical way to use any of these tools? Do these issues even matter to most?
The more I learn about the dark side behind much of AI--I highly recommend Karen Hao's Empire of AI--the more disturbing it is. I recognize the transformative potential of some of these AI tools, but I also feel a sense of guilt or complicity when I use them. Is this just a first-world problem?
I know I'm not alone in working at a school with a mission statement centered on moral values or a school that aims for sustainable environmental practices. AI tech is counter to many of these things. What's a classroom teacher to do?
Not expecting answers from you, Stephen, though I'd love your thoughts. Just sharing my questions these days and wondering if anyone else is thinking about these things, too.
I read your important work post and I think we occupy a similar place in our careers and with respect to our working with the tools. Candidly, I'm a little puzzled by the fixation on the environmental costs of AI as opposed to so many of the other technologies we use every day - why aren't we as incensed by the exploitation of labor for our iPhones and thousands of other gadgets and electronics we use constantly? Do you feel the same guilt every time you take our your smartphone? I concede there are quite a few additional issues when it comes to AI, but I've read enough posts and other articles regarding the environmental costs to feel like the story is much more complicated than some of the statistics that get thrown out there and (in my view) those who are inclined to dislike AI for many other reasons will selectively single out AI and its environmental concerns and forget about the ways Netflix and every other way in which our digital economy is already beholden to the cloud and how that strains the environment. That said, I am concerned about the explosion of new data centers and power demands AI is bringing. But it's already here and it's coming. There are just so many ways in which what we do every day has environmental impacts (flying?) that I find it somewhat confusing that AI is the one we choose to draw a line in the sand regarding moral values. Maybe it will be the tipping point. I don't know. There are so many other good reasons to try to keep AI out of the hands of our students. But, yes, I absolutely think discussing AI needs to include its environmental impact as part of the conversation. But I don't think it's likely to stop the 800 million weekly users (and that's just ChatGPT) so I think we're going to have to live with the demand and what that brings. That's capitalism and I know there are plenty of people who have a problem with it as an exploitative system, but that's a separate conversation of which AI is just one part. I'm just trying to survive with what's in front of me. I'm sure that's not a satisfying answer and I do get where you're coming from but, no, I don't feel guilty using these products. But I can understand why others do the same way I understand why some people don't eat meat.
Capitalism it is, but it's not a fair market. If it were, I would have knowledge about how some of these platforms develop, curate, and run their products, and then I could consume according to my choices. As it is now, I know more about the energy costs of my appliances, heck even my light bulbs than I do about these technologies, which I also use every day.
I know you know all that, too. Like you, I'm just trying to survive what's in front of us. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful and frequent posts. They always draw me into a deeper level of thinking. Honestly, I don't know how you do it all AND still teach full time!
Great article. In our increasingly polarized world, so many third conversations would be valuable. Two notes specifically on this one: 1) I think there has to be not just a role, but increasingly an expectation on parents to engage. It's a complicated space for kids to navigate - schools can be a part of it but will be slow and uneven in adapting. Tech companies have no incentive for guiding kids in a balanced way that prepares them for the future but also explores the downsides and limits of the technology. 2) The most important line might be "AI is not one thing". Nuanced, third conversations (at home, at work, at school, in society) are really difficult when terms are overly broad and mean different things to different people participating in the conversation.
In K-12, parents may be the only way to pressure schools to be more pro-active. Agentic browsers are coming and most schools aren't dealing with LLM's as standalone entities.
Very interesting - I had no idea Claude had added the skills option, something new for me to learn! This resonates with an article I read a while ago about the 'Wicked problem of AI' (wish I could put my finger on it to cite properly, but there we are) and my own sense of frustration as I try to help my colleagues and students navigate this turbulent time. I'm beginning to think that part of my problem is the old conflation of the North Field for the North star: teachers want a "North Field" - a definable space with known tasks and measurable outcomes - as this captures our instinctive response to the uncertainty of AI. We want clear boundaries, specific objectives, and predictable results. However, wicked problems require a different orientation: identifying a "North Star" that provides direction without promising a specific destination.
I think your conclusion is pointing in much the same direction as Dr Tony Frontier's "AI with Intention." He suggests we need to refocus on intentional learning (helping students develop the intrinsic motivation to apply strategies (not just the surface content location/acquisition) that result in deeper learning. To achieve this we need to re-orient our practice towards both: Intentional learning: cognitive processes with learning as the goal rather than incidental outcome; and, Intentional teaching: alignment of success criteria, feedback, learning strategies, teaching methods, activities, and assessments to support students' intentional learning.
Nice summary - this is a tall order in HS's where teachers already have so much on their plate and many of these strategies are challenging with younger learners. But definitely check out Skills.
For most of my life I have clung to the idea that there will always be balance in the Universe. That means for every incredible, wonderful, truly amazing thing, there is a balanced opposite and it's naive to think you get the positives without the balanced negatives. That's why I appreciated your analysis, especially the appeal to consider a third position between the two poles.
Just a few sentences in I was thinking of a book I read decades ago -- "The Monster Under the Bed" (1994 by Davis and Botkin). Meant primarily as a business book about the coming disruptions from tech, they also discussed implications for education. They were not alone in being prescient about both the potential for disruption, but also the need for education to change.
With great respect for the education profession and those who've dedicated themselves to it, it's difficult for me to be endlessly sympathetic as educators at all levels struggle to deal with the impact of AI. Remember the old Simon and Garfunkle song, "Sounds of Silence" and the line “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls."? Instead of tenement, maybe "school house" would have been more appropriate. The words have been there but for many reasons, we refused to listen or look ahead and consider the impacts that were coming. The messages are still very, very clear. The old paradigm of industrial age schooling is totally out of sync with the AI age. It's now at the "Adapt or Die" point of time. I'm an optimist. I think we can adapt. I think there are enough educators like you and other colleagues who can help as we grope forward into the darkness that obscures our future. But we need to move beyond the "AI can be used for cheating." stage.
The problem isn't AI, the problem is what was assigned that AI could discover or answer. Maybe we even need to discuss what is even meant by "academic integrity" in this day and age. Students don't need "answers" they need to know how to think in complex ways where they do indeed have to hold more than one idea and reconcile differing views going forward. This is certainly one of the changes that has been needed for decades. Instead, we continued down the "one right answer" path and that has been our real problem. We have to teach kids of all ages to think deeply, to grapple with complexity and reject over-simplification.
The warnings about massive changes resulting from emerging technologies have been written on the subway walls and schoolhouse halls in increasingly large font size, but we've closed our eyes and ears and carried on.
I was really disheartened to hear about OpenAI going the adult content route. It feels like a huge mistake. I can easily see this triggering backlash from state legislatures, school boards, and education leaders, which could lead to bans or restrictions on using OpenAI tools altogether.
It seems like a risky and short-sighted move. Now it’s going to sit in the same category as Meta’s LLM and Grok, which is just unfortunate.
And did you see that Sam Altman interview where he said scary things are going to happen. What is wrong with these tech guys? I honestly don’t get it.
I appreciate that you mention that a way out of this requires a willingness to be wrong. Adults (like students) need to remember that being wrong is a gift. When we are wrong, we have an opportunity to learn.
On the other hand, one of the worst things in life is to be wrong and to not know until it is too late.
Let's hope we don't find ourselves in the palm of that hand.
Thanks for this post, Stephen. Always appreciate your openness and willingness to share what you're doing and thinking as an educator.
I'm wondering how does the exploitation of human labor and the environmental costs of building and maintaining these AI tools factor in conversations about AI? Is there an ethical way to use any of these tools? Do these issues even matter to most?
The more I learn about the dark side behind much of AI--I highly recommend Karen Hao's Empire of AI--the more disturbing it is. I recognize the transformative potential of some of these AI tools, but I also feel a sense of guilt or complicity when I use them. Is this just a first-world problem?
I know I'm not alone in working at a school with a mission statement centered on moral values or a school that aims for sustainable environmental practices. AI tech is counter to many of these things. What's a classroom teacher to do?
Not expecting answers from you, Stephen, though I'd love your thoughts. Just sharing my questions these days and wondering if anyone else is thinking about these things, too.
I read your important work post and I think we occupy a similar place in our careers and with respect to our working with the tools. Candidly, I'm a little puzzled by the fixation on the environmental costs of AI as opposed to so many of the other technologies we use every day - why aren't we as incensed by the exploitation of labor for our iPhones and thousands of other gadgets and electronics we use constantly? Do you feel the same guilt every time you take our your smartphone? I concede there are quite a few additional issues when it comes to AI, but I've read enough posts and other articles regarding the environmental costs to feel like the story is much more complicated than some of the statistics that get thrown out there and (in my view) those who are inclined to dislike AI for many other reasons will selectively single out AI and its environmental concerns and forget about the ways Netflix and every other way in which our digital economy is already beholden to the cloud and how that strains the environment. That said, I am concerned about the explosion of new data centers and power demands AI is bringing. But it's already here and it's coming. There are just so many ways in which what we do every day has environmental impacts (flying?) that I find it somewhat confusing that AI is the one we choose to draw a line in the sand regarding moral values. Maybe it will be the tipping point. I don't know. There are so many other good reasons to try to keep AI out of the hands of our students. But, yes, I absolutely think discussing AI needs to include its environmental impact as part of the conversation. But I don't think it's likely to stop the 800 million weekly users (and that's just ChatGPT) so I think we're going to have to live with the demand and what that brings. That's capitalism and I know there are plenty of people who have a problem with it as an exploitative system, but that's a separate conversation of which AI is just one part. I'm just trying to survive with what's in front of me. I'm sure that's not a satisfying answer and I do get where you're coming from but, no, I don't feel guilty using these products. But I can understand why others do the same way I understand why some people don't eat meat.
Fair points, Stephen. I'm certainly no extremist as far as all the compromises and willful blindness it takes to live in the first world. And as this recent article shows, AI is pretty much impossible to escape these days. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/28/style/48-hours-without-ai.html?unlocked_article_code=1.yU8.QBmL.pZGCqKVpfkHy&smid=url-share
Capitalism it is, but it's not a fair market. If it were, I would have knowledge about how some of these platforms develop, curate, and run their products, and then I could consume according to my choices. As it is now, I know more about the energy costs of my appliances, heck even my light bulbs than I do about these technologies, which I also use every day.
I know you know all that, too. Like you, I'm just trying to survive what's in front of us. Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful and frequent posts. They always draw me into a deeper level of thinking. Honestly, I don't know how you do it all AND still teach full time!
Great article. In our increasingly polarized world, so many third conversations would be valuable. Two notes specifically on this one: 1) I think there has to be not just a role, but increasingly an expectation on parents to engage. It's a complicated space for kids to navigate - schools can be a part of it but will be slow and uneven in adapting. Tech companies have no incentive for guiding kids in a balanced way that prepares them for the future but also explores the downsides and limits of the technology. 2) The most important line might be "AI is not one thing". Nuanced, third conversations (at home, at work, at school, in society) are really difficult when terms are overly broad and mean different things to different people participating in the conversation.
In K-12, parents may be the only way to pressure schools to be more pro-active. Agentic browsers are coming and most schools aren't dealing with LLM's as standalone entities.
Very interesting - I had no idea Claude had added the skills option, something new for me to learn! This resonates with an article I read a while ago about the 'Wicked problem of AI' (wish I could put my finger on it to cite properly, but there we are) and my own sense of frustration as I try to help my colleagues and students navigate this turbulent time. I'm beginning to think that part of my problem is the old conflation of the North Field for the North star: teachers want a "North Field" - a definable space with known tasks and measurable outcomes - as this captures our instinctive response to the uncertainty of AI. We want clear boundaries, specific objectives, and predictable results. However, wicked problems require a different orientation: identifying a "North Star" that provides direction without promising a specific destination.
I think your conclusion is pointing in much the same direction as Dr Tony Frontier's "AI with Intention." He suggests we need to refocus on intentional learning (helping students develop the intrinsic motivation to apply strategies (not just the surface content location/acquisition) that result in deeper learning. To achieve this we need to re-orient our practice towards both: Intentional learning: cognitive processes with learning as the goal rather than incidental outcome; and, Intentional teaching: alignment of success criteria, feedback, learning strategies, teaching methods, activities, and assessments to support students' intentional learning.
Nice summary - this is a tall order in HS's where teachers already have so much on their plate and many of these strategies are challenging with younger learners. But definitely check out Skills.
Excellent post, Stephen and much appreciated.
For most of my life I have clung to the idea that there will always be balance in the Universe. That means for every incredible, wonderful, truly amazing thing, there is a balanced opposite and it's naive to think you get the positives without the balanced negatives. That's why I appreciated your analysis, especially the appeal to consider a third position between the two poles.
Just a few sentences in I was thinking of a book I read decades ago -- "The Monster Under the Bed" (1994 by Davis and Botkin). Meant primarily as a business book about the coming disruptions from tech, they also discussed implications for education. They were not alone in being prescient about both the potential for disruption, but also the need for education to change.
With great respect for the education profession and those who've dedicated themselves to it, it's difficult for me to be endlessly sympathetic as educators at all levels struggle to deal with the impact of AI. Remember the old Simon and Garfunkle song, "Sounds of Silence" and the line “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls."? Instead of tenement, maybe "school house" would have been more appropriate. The words have been there but for many reasons, we refused to listen or look ahead and consider the impacts that were coming. The messages are still very, very clear. The old paradigm of industrial age schooling is totally out of sync with the AI age. It's now at the "Adapt or Die" point of time. I'm an optimist. I think we can adapt. I think there are enough educators like you and other colleagues who can help as we grope forward into the darkness that obscures our future. But we need to move beyond the "AI can be used for cheating." stage.
The problem isn't AI, the problem is what was assigned that AI could discover or answer. Maybe we even need to discuss what is even meant by "academic integrity" in this day and age. Students don't need "answers" they need to know how to think in complex ways where they do indeed have to hold more than one idea and reconcile differing views going forward. This is certainly one of the changes that has been needed for decades. Instead, we continued down the "one right answer" path and that has been our real problem. We have to teach kids of all ages to think deeply, to grapple with complexity and reject over-simplification.
The warnings about massive changes resulting from emerging technologies have been written on the subway walls and schoolhouse halls in increasingly large font size, but we've closed our eyes and ears and carried on.
Time is up.