Thanks for sharing, Stephen. I appreciate what Trinity is trying to do with that talk. There's definitely a demand from teachers who are wondering, "But what do we do now?!" when it comes to AI in our classrooms and in the lives of our students.
Too often though those talks and webinars are full of tech-hype and not grounded in the day-to-day struggle we face as teachers. I go into those things hopeful for guidance, or at least some understanding of what we're dealing with, but honestly, I come out more often than not angry, frustrated, or demoralized. These folks have so many obvious blind spots. Does Kurzweil really not see any problems with someone (or maybe four men) being able to influence his grandchildren's thoughts and behavior on a brain-wave level?!
I'm actually trying to create an event for my school that would bridge that gap or at least be a more authentic experience for teachers. Who would be on your dream panel or speaker list?
I've seen some of her posts. Yes, I am often disappointed as well by these talks. To be fair, this wasn't billed as PD per se, but I was hoping for more of a recognition that Kurzweil sees some of the problems that are developing - no one even touched on mental issues or AI companions - I actually think he briefly referenced them in a positive way, but I don't recall specifically. I'm not sure why I expected more having read his books but it confirmed what I think many people already know - these folks are living in a different reality with a totally alien worldview as the rest of us. But it was certainly interesting!
This captures a frustration I recognize even without being there: educators asking urgent questions about now and getting answers about 2035.
But I wonder if the mismatch reveals something useful: we’re looking to the wrong people for answers. The futurists can’t help us because they’re not in classrooms wrestling with these questions daily.
You make an excellent point about needing frameworks rather than predictions. I’d add: we might learn more from looking at present algorithmic failures (Robodebt, UK Post Office Horizon scandal) than from speculating about AGI. Those cases show us the real problems—opacity, deferred human judgment, accountability gaps—that we’re already navigating with students.
The question about wisdom versus knowledge wasn’t really about 2040. It was about what education should cultivate now: judgment, ethical imagination, the capacity to question systems rather than just optimize within them. Those capacities matter whether students have ChatGPT or nanobots.
Maybe the practical path forward is less about predicting what AI will become and more about feeling our way through the transition—experimenting, documenting what works, sharing horizontally with other teachers. The people who figure this out won’t be the ones with the “right” framework. They’ll be the ones willing to try things, fail, learn, and share.
Thank you for this review of the event, Stephen. I am still processing my own notes from it as moderator. I think you are right to observe that there was less in the form of actionable "next day" support for teachers. The challenge of bridging Kurzweil's ideas and the needs of the moment proved greater than anticipated. To your points, next day really matters. On that question, as a former English teacher, I have been thinking a lot about teaching writing. On the one hand, writing assignments have been in the crosshairs of AI since ChatGPT blew up. They seem highly vulnerable to AI. However, English teacher friends of mine and I talk about the fact that writing, when taught most engagingly and effectively, is less vulnerable to AI than it seems. When writing is taught as a process with drafts and feedback and mind maps and authentic inquiry, it's not quite as AI-able as an assignment where a teacher gives it, waits for it, and collects it a week later. I share this example because one thing Kurzweil underscored was how authentic inquiry and investigation were going to be increasingly important in the future. I have seen many individual teachers who value such approaches over the years. Even some schools. But as a system, K-12 education has not valued such models historically at scale. If I had to sum up where my head is at since the event thus far, it has been there.
Thank you for posting all of this - very helpful to read about him within an actual current educational setting.
This must have been a bit challenging to moderate. Year two of teaching AI and Ethics as a semester ELA HS course: Kurtzweil pretty quickly moves over into "big tech baddie" territory in the perspective of 90% to 95% of the students enrolled, mostly from watching part of the Ted Talk and studying singularity theory.
Getting any widespread system of people to work towards a shared mission is challenging, within or outside of K-12 education. Scaling authenticity just can't come from Carnegie Units done in...robotic fashion?
There are so many contours to this. I'll be processing for a while still. It's interesting to note that much of the discussion has focused on curriculum and instruction. AI, however, might have the greatest implications for large-scale assessment. You might be able to, for example, assess students via oral exams at scale in a way that is unrealistic without the technology. The connection between large-scale assessment history and technology is deep. I wrote about it some years ago in the context of writing assessment with my friend Nadia Behizadeh here: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169653.pdf
" The hard part is redesigning classrooms in the present - with tools no one trained us to use, in a system that still pretends they don’t exist." EXACTLY! Is it better to experiment with AI in the classroom and make mistakes, or to wall it off by only allowing blue books until we figure this out? I am leaning into the former and your essays help guide me.
That is the question on many people's minds. It's a conundrum. It makes a big difference with your comfort level with the technology. And, if Ray is right, it's only going to get much more complicated.
Great article Stephen! Kurzweil’s future sounds bleak and soulless. I would go so far as to say that the wealthy who are building AI and pushing it into every nook and cranny of every field of endeavor are not the ones to tell us how to use it to better the human condition. And shouldn't that be the purpose?
I don’t know if it will all be bleak and soulless but it’s totally out of touch with what’s happening now. It just feels like the tech folks are living in an imagined future most of us don’t share without a recognition of how to get from here to there. Lots of comments like “the next decade may be difficult.”
Stephen, this resonates. The questions those panelists asked were perfect, but "I don't have all the answers for that" doesn't help educators who need solutions NOW.
I've been working with higher ed on AI integration, and those who are making progress aren't waiting for 2029. They're asking practical questions: How do we teach students to use AI to prepare for discussion rather than avoid it? What does assessment look like when AI can generate adequate output? In fact, I am speaking today at the Online Learning Consortium's Accelerate conference later today about this very topic. https://gamma.app/docs/From-Generative-AI-to-AGI-Preparing-Higher-Education-for-the-Next-9y0hj16u4csslfu
The practices I am encouraging is educators having students use AI to practice reasoning before presenting to stakeholders, or for initial structural feedback so class time focuses on strategic thinking, or for freeing time for passion, curiosity, and relationships. Not revolutionary, just thoughtful.
I've been writing about this gap between tech hype and practical pedagogy on my Substack. https://tawnyameans.substack.com/ I would love to hear what you think.
This looks great - this is where I am as well. I'm all about the practical. Kids are going to use it going forward - it's basically Google and the internet in general at this point. Teachers wait to catch up at their peril.
Thanks for sharing, Stephen. I appreciate what Trinity is trying to do with that talk. There's definitely a demand from teachers who are wondering, "But what do we do now?!" when it comes to AI in our classrooms and in the lives of our students.
Too often though those talks and webinars are full of tech-hype and not grounded in the day-to-day struggle we face as teachers. I go into those things hopeful for guidance, or at least some understanding of what we're dealing with, but honestly, I come out more often than not angry, frustrated, or demoralized. These folks have so many obvious blind spots. Does Kurzweil really not see any problems with someone (or maybe four men) being able to influence his grandchildren's thoughts and behavior on a brain-wave level?!
I'm actually trying to create an event for my school that would bridge that gap or at least be a more authentic experience for teachers. Who would be on your dream panel or speaker list?
Definitely on my dream panel is https://nitafarahany.substack.com/ She's mentioned in that Times article and here: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/14/magazine/neurotech-neuralink-rights-regulations.html She's doing fascinating work on the complications of brain interaction technology. Check her out if you don't already know her.
I've seen some of her posts. Yes, I am often disappointed as well by these talks. To be fair, this wasn't billed as PD per se, but I was hoping for more of a recognition that Kurzweil sees some of the problems that are developing - no one even touched on mental issues or AI companions - I actually think he briefly referenced them in a positive way, but I don't recall specifically. I'm not sure why I expected more having read his books but it confirmed what I think many people already know - these folks are living in a different reality with a totally alien worldview as the rest of us. But it was certainly interesting!
This captures a frustration I recognize even without being there: educators asking urgent questions about now and getting answers about 2035.
But I wonder if the mismatch reveals something useful: we’re looking to the wrong people for answers. The futurists can’t help us because they’re not in classrooms wrestling with these questions daily.
You make an excellent point about needing frameworks rather than predictions. I’d add: we might learn more from looking at present algorithmic failures (Robodebt, UK Post Office Horizon scandal) than from speculating about AGI. Those cases show us the real problems—opacity, deferred human judgment, accountability gaps—that we’re already navigating with students.
The question about wisdom versus knowledge wasn’t really about 2040. It was about what education should cultivate now: judgment, ethical imagination, the capacity to question systems rather than just optimize within them. Those capacities matter whether students have ChatGPT or nanobots.
Maybe the practical path forward is less about predicting what AI will become and more about feeling our way through the transition—experimenting, documenting what works, sharing horizontally with other teachers. The people who figure this out won’t be the ones with the “right” framework. They’ll be the ones willing to try things, fail, learn, and share.
Thank you for this review of the event, Stephen. I am still processing my own notes from it as moderator. I think you are right to observe that there was less in the form of actionable "next day" support for teachers. The challenge of bridging Kurzweil's ideas and the needs of the moment proved greater than anticipated. To your points, next day really matters. On that question, as a former English teacher, I have been thinking a lot about teaching writing. On the one hand, writing assignments have been in the crosshairs of AI since ChatGPT blew up. They seem highly vulnerable to AI. However, English teacher friends of mine and I talk about the fact that writing, when taught most engagingly and effectively, is less vulnerable to AI than it seems. When writing is taught as a process with drafts and feedback and mind maps and authentic inquiry, it's not quite as AI-able as an assignment where a teacher gives it, waits for it, and collects it a week later. I share this example because one thing Kurzweil underscored was how authentic inquiry and investigation were going to be increasingly important in the future. I have seen many individual teachers who value such approaches over the years. Even some schools. But as a system, K-12 education has not valued such models historically at scale. If I had to sum up where my head is at since the event thus far, it has been there.
Thank you for posting all of this - very helpful to read about him within an actual current educational setting.
This must have been a bit challenging to moderate. Year two of teaching AI and Ethics as a semester ELA HS course: Kurtzweil pretty quickly moves over into "big tech baddie" territory in the perspective of 90% to 95% of the students enrolled, mostly from watching part of the Ted Talk and studying singularity theory.
Getting any widespread system of people to work towards a shared mission is challenging, within or outside of K-12 education. Scaling authenticity just can't come from Carnegie Units done in...robotic fashion?
There are so many contours to this. I'll be processing for a while still. It's interesting to note that much of the discussion has focused on curriculum and instruction. AI, however, might have the greatest implications for large-scale assessment. You might be able to, for example, assess students via oral exams at scale in a way that is unrealistic without the technology. The connection between large-scale assessment history and technology is deep. I wrote about it some years ago in the context of writing assessment with my friend Nadia Behizadeh here: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1169653.pdf
" The hard part is redesigning classrooms in the present - with tools no one trained us to use, in a system that still pretends they don’t exist." EXACTLY! Is it better to experiment with AI in the classroom and make mistakes, or to wall it off by only allowing blue books until we figure this out? I am leaning into the former and your essays help guide me.
That is the question on many people's minds. It's a conundrum. It makes a big difference with your comfort level with the technology. And, if Ray is right, it's only going to get much more complicated.
Love this perspective! Your point about bridging the boundless optimism and skeptical pragmatism of educators is very incisive.
Great article Stephen! Kurzweil’s future sounds bleak and soulless. I would go so far as to say that the wealthy who are building AI and pushing it into every nook and cranny of every field of endeavor are not the ones to tell us how to use it to better the human condition. And shouldn't that be the purpose?
I don’t know if it will all be bleak and soulless but it’s totally out of touch with what’s happening now. It just feels like the tech folks are living in an imagined future most of us don’t share without a recognition of how to get from here to there. Lots of comments like “the next decade may be difficult.”
Thank you for this post, Stephen. All of the praise for "personalized" education is making me more and more committed to impersonalized education :-)
Stephen, this resonates. The questions those panelists asked were perfect, but "I don't have all the answers for that" doesn't help educators who need solutions NOW.
I've been working with higher ed on AI integration, and those who are making progress aren't waiting for 2029. They're asking practical questions: How do we teach students to use AI to prepare for discussion rather than avoid it? What does assessment look like when AI can generate adequate output? In fact, I am speaking today at the Online Learning Consortium's Accelerate conference later today about this very topic. https://gamma.app/docs/From-Generative-AI-to-AGI-Preparing-Higher-Education-for-the-Next-9y0hj16u4csslfu
The practices I am encouraging is educators having students use AI to practice reasoning before presenting to stakeholders, or for initial structural feedback so class time focuses on strategic thinking, or for freeing time for passion, curiosity, and relationships. Not revolutionary, just thoughtful.
I've been writing about this gap between tech hype and practical pedagogy on my Substack. https://tawnyameans.substack.com/ I would love to hear what you think.
I love your gamma presentation!
This looks great - this is where I am as well. I'm all about the practical. Kids are going to use it going forward - it's basically Google and the internet in general at this point. Teachers wait to catch up at their peril.
I would love to connect and work on an article that answers the questions your panel brought up.