Just Because Generative AI Can Do It, Doesn't Mean Use It: Thoughts on Ethical Use

 

 "...we, all of us, have made the world too much into a computer, and that this remaking of the world in the image of the computer started long before there were any electronic computers. Now that we have computers, it becomes somewhat easier to see this imaginative transformation we have worked on the world. Now we can use computers itself--that is the idea of the computer--as a metaphor to help us understand what we have done and are doing." Joseph Weizenbaum, Computer Scientist and Professor at MIT, in his book Computer Power and Human Reason

Weizenbaum is perhaps best known for his creation of ELIZA in the 1960s, an earlier iteration of an AI-like program that was designed to play the role of a psychotherapist. The responses this program were so uncanny, that mental health professionals and many others started talking about it as a therapeutic tool for application in the mental health field. Weizenbaum could not believe that actual professionals seriously thought his program could automate psychotherapy. He was also "startled," as he put it, that people "became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it" (p. 6). He asked a very relevant question that should be asked today:

"What can the psychiatrist's image of his patient be when he sees himself, as therapist, not as an engaged human being acting as a healer, but as an information processor following rules, etc.?"

That question gets at the heart of some of the moral questions at the heart of when someone chooses the use AI to generate content. When an individual chooses to use AI to generate a Thank-You letter or generate work feedback for employees, what is the user's image of the person to whom they are writing? In using generative AI, what is the user's image of the recipient of the thank-you letter? Do they see that person as not important enough for the crafting of a personalized thank-you? What about the employee work feedback? Does the supervisor user not see the employee as a human being worthy of being engaged with? These are the moral and ethical questions that Weizenbaum thought about back in the 60s and 70s concerning the turning of certain things we do over to computers, but it seems we have forgotten his wisdom today in our race turn over tasks to AI.

"If I choose to use ChatGPT to generate a thank-letter, what is the harm?" an individual might say. Sure there is no physical harm, but there is a level of subterfuge in both these cases that is questionable. Sincerity can really be questioned in these instances because the user of generative AI has not thoughtfully engaged in word selection, syntax, and the craft of the language, so, can they say they are truly thankful, and that they really mean the feedback provided both positive and negative?

Weizenbaum captured at the core what is wrong with relying on computer technologies to sometimes do the things we humans should do for ourselves. That core idea is that the choice of using AI technologies is a political choice. Your simple turning to it to craft a letter, email, or evaluation can be an indication of what you really think of the recipient. Or it can communicate a conception of that individual as not worthy of attention. Weizenbaum also wrote in Computer Power and Human Reason:

"...there are certain tasks which computers ought not be made to do, independent of whether computers can be made to do them" (p. x).

In the Age of AI Hype we would do well to listen and act introspectively when we ask our computer tools to do things for us. It just might be the right thing to do even if it takes more of our time to do it.

Weizenbaum, J. (1976). Computer Power and Human Reason. W H Freeman and Company; New York, NY

Is it the Responsibility of Educators to Teach Students How to Use AI Effectively and Ethically? Maybe Not

I realize the AI-in-Education-Evangelical Movement and faithful will find that which I post here, questions posed on the edge of blasphemy, but this uncritical acceptance of Silicon Valley’s latest begs some serious questions and needs a counter-viewpoint.

Why is it every time Silicon Valley dumps one of its new inventions on the world it is suddenly the . ' responsibility of educators to sanitize that technology’s use by teaching students how to use it ethically? Why is there absolutely no responsibility for these companies to engineer safe-to-use products to begin with? Perhaps, because Silicon Valley keeps dumping these products on us, they should pay a special education tax to pay for all the work educators have to engage in to put out the fires generated by these so-called “innovative” products.

In the mid-1990s, at the emergence of the internet, teachers were tasked and admonished to adopt and teach students how to use the internet ethically and effectively. With all the garbage on there now, it can rather be easy. Just treat it like teachers treated the National Enquirer in the 70s: they told us to simply don’t believe what you read in those things.

Fast forward to the advent of social media. Again, we as educators were told that we have to adopt social media in order to better communicate and teach students how to use it ethically and correctly. This quickly became impossible because these companies, like Facebook, engineered their products through their algorithms to promote the bull - - - -, and the most outrageous over anything else like the boring truth, all for the sake of click-profits. 

Has anyone stopped to think that perhaps it is time to hold these Silicon Valley companies responsible for the products they foist upon the world? Europe is starting to get it. I realize in a country that has the “guns-don’t-kill-people-people-kill-people” mentality this is blasphemy. After all social media products don’t spew misinformation and nonsense, people do, even though social media is an engineered megaphone for that.

Now, AI is foisted on the world, with its engineered flaws for potential abuse and ability to generate  nonsense, and we are allowing companies like OpenAI to shift responsibility to educators in a sanitation project to make their products more useful, ethical and safer.

In my opinion, that is twisted ethical thinking. Why not make these tech companies responsible for their flawed products to begin with instead of letting them focus on padding profits and CEO salaries?

Maybe instead of AI sanitation for these companies we need to choose purposely to not engage or participate until they clean up their act. That is also a perfectly ethical choice too.

#AIEducation #AILeadershio #AI #ChatGPT #OpenAI

Important Questions to Ponder in AI Adoption

"The question of who demonized work is an important one, for as anyone knows, it can give great joy and be immensely satisfying when it is something one genuinely likes doing. Not much mechanized labor today falls into that category, whether it is sitting in front of a computer or tending a machine in a factory."  Nichols Fox, Against the Machine

Much of the AI marketing propaganda actually seeks to demonize work whether it intends to or not in order to sell its products. All the talk about "automation" of tasks is about turning over to a machine work that currently a person is doing. "AI will take away all the tasks you do not enjoy doing," is the promo-rhetoric. That is certainly appetizing, for who certainly does not wish to get rid of those annoying, monotonous tasks that are a part of our everyday lives?

But historically, machinery like AI has done much more than rid humans of those less desirous tasks; it has also replaced genuine, enjoyable, fulfilling work for some. Think about the craftsmen who made things for us before machines took over. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not advocating totally against machines and manufacturing, for unquestionably, a lot of good has come from those things, and I am a person who has benefited from them. I will also add that even craftsmen adopted machines and tools that either replaced undesirable tasks or made their work more timely. But what I am speaking of is just for a bit of sober-minded, critical thinking in the midst of all this AI Hype. I am suggesting that while AI can certainly assist in our work, the central question for me is: "Just what am I willing to outsource to mechanical systems?" "What tasks am I unwilling to give up because it is necessary for me to carry out my work?"

The sales pitch I hear from AI salespersons and AI evangelists is often that "It will make you more efficient. It will save you time" but is the tasks I am engaged in meant to be efficient? That is an important question because not everything we do fits the mechanical, business definition of efficiency. Take writing this: it is far from efficient to compose this writing. It certainly does not often lend itself to a time-schedule. And, I will add that the criteria of efficiency has no place for task-fulfillment personally unless of course one of your obsessions is be efficient in all things. Which reminds me of a poem I used to teach in high school English called, "Mr. Artesian's Conscientiousness" by Ogden Nash.

In this poem, an office worker, Mr. Artesian is so obsessed with time that his sole objective becomes "saving oodles of time" which is a hallmark of the efficiency obsession. He then takes on a program to reduce the time he spends engaged in daily activities like sleeping, eating, shaving, etc., until the end result he does not like the time he has to waste traveling in an elevator, so he jumps out his fiftieth floor window to save time. No doubt there are truly ridiculous things sometimes undertaken for the sake of efficiency, so certainly outsourcing a task to AI could be one of those. This means thinking critically for yourself about just what can be outsourced to this new-fangled technology. In addition, there just might be some personally fulfilling reasons to not outsource.

Ultimately, I am being cynical here, this uncritical hype about outsourcing our work and lives to technology just might be another way for Silicon Valley tech companies to get even more of our personal data for economic exploitation. 

The AI companies and evangelists certainly have an interest as well in getting us to think we hate our work, after all, if they can get us to see our work or parts of it as undesirable, they stand a better chance to make bundles. They want us, you and me, to be AI users, consumers.

In the end, it is OK to be sober, slow-moving, and not in a hurry in your decisions about whether or not you will use AI to outsource your work. It is an old marketing tactic to get your customer to think you have to buy their product now.

Don't Fall for the "AI Leadership" Rhetoric: Be a Leader Who Thinks First

"Technology was the new religion of the people. There was the sense that there was no problem that technology could not solve." Carl Benedikt Frey, "The Technology Trap"

One major truth about AI...solutionism is very much alive. The belief that technology has all our answers to all our problems is seen in so much of the "promo-rhetoric" around this technology.

We learning nothing from the past because we have blinded ourselves from any views backward, for if we look there, we see that very often, the technologies we develop to solve our problems, sometimes solve their intended targets, but with them, come a host of unintended and "unforeseen" consequences. (Could it be this "unforeseenness is related to the blinders we wear towards the past?) For every tech solution, if you use the lens of history, there are always less than desirable and sometimes catastrophic consequences.

By wearing the lenses of solutionism, leaders are blind to the possibility that the most expedient solution is sometimes not technological, and that there just might be an answer that does not require computer chips and screens.

AI offers some benefits, not doubt, but to religiously and fanatically claim that it will cure a host of our ills, without providing any solid evidence is cultish. That has never ended well for those who unquestioningly follow these individuals.

Instead, THINK...think for yourself. Do not simply accept the latest prognostifications from some tech enthusiast who really has a financial interest in selling your that product, AI products included.

Leading means thinking critically and not always falling immediately for the false promises of solutionistic rhetoric.

Losing the Smartphone: You Can Choose Who's In Control, You or That Infernal Device of Intrusion and Behavior Modification

Today, I got into the car and on the way to pick up a take-out order, I discovered I had left behind my cell phone. I was reminded of this fact when I looked at the center console screen and it read: "No cell phone found." There was instant, organic feeling of panic for just a moment accompanied by the thought, "Oh no! I've forgotten my phone!"

This discovery and these thoughts were immediately followed by "So what!" and  I began to realize that forgetting it was not a bad thing. Actually, it was a good thing. I had left behind my 21st century intrusion and life modification device, and all was going to be just fine. Why did I react with these notions and the reaction of "Oh No!"?

It was in these moments and all moments like them, I am reminded of just how successful Silicon Valley and the Techno-Optimists have been able to market and condition all of us with the notion that "We must be connected at all times, 24 hours a day."

I was additionally reminded of another equally important fact: "I control my life. I can choose to leave my technological-intrusion device when I CHOOSE to do so. It is not a blasphemous act. It is not an act of the Luddite. The world and my world is not going to end. Despite the techno-optimist babble and blather, I am not irrelevant nor left behind without that infernal mechanism of beeping, chirping, and ringing.

Perhaps, without that thing connecting me to the intruding world outside and beyond my immediate one, I am perhaps at that moment closer to just being and living than ever. 

I have to add a final technological note of disclosure...I have have already turned off all notifications on my cell phone. This has been liberating and has no negative effect on my work or life. I am in charge of my device. I check my messages, email, and even the news when I CHOOSE. What's more, I've learned that this works fine. Rarely do any of these intruders of my life and my thoughts require immediate attention despite what the techno-optimists and marketers say.

Questioning Whether to Adopt and Adapt to Tech Including AI: It Is Still a Choice

Photo by Author: Blueridge Afternoon Blooms

The idea that a technology is inevitable so we might as well accept it and adapt to is an unquestioned norm our our current society. When a new invention comes along--the desktop PC, the smartphone, social media, and now artificial intelligence--we are told that it is inevitable; that it is fruitless to resist. We should just acquiesce, adopt, and adapt to that technology-machine. To not do so is to be a Luddite. To not accept and adapt will somehow put you "behind." But is this the case? What if we question this so-called "doctrine of technological inevitability" used to promote these gadgets?

The idea of "technological inevitability" is largely unquestioned in our tech-worshipping world. As new gadgets come and go, consumers race in circles to keep up. But is this idea of inevitability reality, or is it a tactic of manipulative-marketing? Nichols Fox, in her book, Against the Machine, poses a question that gets to the heart of this inevitability doctrine:

"People must, in other words, adapt to the machine. The idea that it should be the other way around--that machines should adapt to humans--seems not to have occurred to anyone. And yet it would seem obvious. Who, after all, is in control here?"

This a clear statement that pierces through the inevitability doctrine of tech integration. We were told when PCs, social media, smartphones, (you insert whatever tech gadget you wish here)..."you have no choice but to use and adapt your lives around these devices." Now, AI is the latest and the inevitability doctrine of tech integration is again being invoked. But, Fox's question reminds us that I-you-we are still in control here.

The notion and question of who is in control at the advent of a new technology is immediately hijacked bu a promo-marketing assemblage of tech-inventors, entrepreneurs, consultants, salespersons, all who stand to gain a bundle and even establish their professional identities on getting more and more people to acquiesce, adopt, and adapt to this new technology. Their doctrine of technological inevitability immediately says, "You can't control this...you can't resist, so you might as well let this technology into your life as it is." These tech-promo-optimists frame the entire argument around the "get-on-board-or-be-behind-or-be-irrelevant" argument. It is their old promo-rhetorical tactic used over and over again. But it is wrong and manipulative. I-you-we are still in control. We can still choose which technologies we allow into our lives; we can choose how we use those technologies, and if they do not work for us, we can choose not to use them. We must see through the manipulative application of the inevitability doctrine of tech integration and adoption.

Our lives will certainly not end, and we will not be destined to a life of inefficiency and unproductivity if we choose not to adopt or adapt to the latest offering by Tech. The opposite could also be true that the adoption and adaption of our Tech will help us be more efficient and productive. The point, however, is, we can and should choose for ourselves if, how, and when we allow the shining baubles of tech to enter our lives. We need to take control of these instead of being controlled by these machines. 

We also need to see through the manipulative marketing of tech-peddlers, consultants, and prophets of prosperity and discover for ourselves the role technologies play in our lives and work.

I-you-we still have the power of choice. We can demand that the technologies adapt to us, and if they do not, it is not a sin to say "No thanks."

Is Adoption of AI in Our Collective Common Interest?

Photo by Author: Gnarly Tree

More thoughts on the current AI-hype...

Nobel Prize winning economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson (2023) in their book Power and Progress make another interesting point about the persuasive and marketing tactics and strategies employed by technology-promoters.  They engage in creating a vision of their product that makes adoption of it both efficacious and the right thing to do, even if that adoption is sometimes detrimental to those who adopt it.

This vision-creation for their technological solutions is an appeal to "common interest."

Acemoglu and Johnson (2023) write:

A vision that articulates a common interest is powerful even when--especially when--there are losers as well as winners from new technologies because it enables those doing the reorganization and the technology adoption to convince the rest. (p. 127)

Silicon Valley minted this tactic early on. Going to back to Steve Jobs who was famous for using promo-tropes like "A computer is a bicycle for the mind" or it is "for every man," the Valley and all of the tech industry has become adept over the years in the utilization of this "appeal to common interest tactic."

Moving ahead a bit, it was Mark Zuckerberg and the social media promoters who employed this same tactic. Social media was in our "common interest" because it was going to connect everyone; give everyone a voice; and equalize society according totheir promo-rhetoric. We listened, and we have never never been less connected and more divided and polarized than ever. Yes, we have given voices to everyone as well, even those who spew misinformation and mal-information across the web  with social media megaphones. The result is that finding the truth is nearly impossible on these sites. Never mind whether the tech promoters in this instance really thought it is a good idea to give a megaphone to everyone. Now every bigot and conspiracy theorist has the chance to be of equal standing to those who spend their time and lives trying to ensure they get out reliable information. The information waters of the web are so muddied that it is near impossible to get at the truth, and, you can even live in a bubble where everything you read, view, and hear verifies your own narrow, biased views.

Then there's the smartphone. The techno-promoters worked hard on this one. It was in the common interest of everyone to adopt because it would provide instantaneous access to the web and its world of information, and it would allow us to be forever connected. With this device we can live in a 24-hour cycle of efficiency and productivity. Our jobs can go home with us. And, we have a computer in our pocket to access all the information of the web and also carry our narrow, biased worlds with us too. In addition, this device gives us the ability to "content create" and add to the web babble as well. And, don't forget, all these app companies can now follow us around too and track everything we do and then turn around and sell us "personalized ads" for stuff we don't even want. Sure, the smartphone could be a product that it is in the common interest for all to adopt, but more likely it is in the interest of the tech-promoters.

In both these examples, embedded in the technology-promo marketing rhetoric was an appeal to common interest or the common good. Nothing can be wrong with that, correct?

Now, the AI-Promoters are working overtime and bombarding us with rhetoric that has this vision of common interest embedded in it. "We're going to solve climate change; miraculously cure diseases; and end poverty with the advent of Artificial General Intelligence" they say. It is in our "common interest to adopt and quietly accept AI as a part of our lives.

The truth is, as Acemoglu and Johnson argue, technology adoption rarely works in the common interest and it serves only the interests of those who promote it. This common interest marketing tactic is a classic play in the Silicon Valley marketing playbook.

Asking the questions when AI-promo evangelists come calling such as, "Who is likely to benefit most by the adoption of this technology?" reveals a great deal. History provides an answer as well and it "ain't" necessarily who the AI-promo and cheerleaders say it will be. Just take a glance at the lifestyles of those who run these tech companies and it is clear who benefits most. It is clear that there is a buck to made from AI: just look at the army of promoters and cheerleaders. In the end, however, we are left at best with scraps, and at the worst with their "unintended consequences."

How Can a Country Choose to Neglect the Least Able? Thoughts on Current Political Situation

 

Photo by Author: Serenity at the Falls

Just a thought about our current state...

The question is certainly being asked, "How can any politician create and vote for a budget that knowingly cuts funding for programs that clearly serve the least-able among us? In addition, "How does one justify in one's own mind that millions of people lose medical coverage or food access at the same time providing tax relief for those who are least in need?"

It's rather simple, as Nobel Prize economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson write in "Power and Progress" (2023):

"...the socially powerful often convince themselves that it is their ideas (and often their interests) that matter and find ways of justifying neglecting the rest."

In other words, those in power have so convinced themselves that their ideas and interests matter over everything else. They then turn to ways of justifying the neglect of others in this pursuit.

This suggests that those lead totally lack any humility and have no problems even exploiting others as long as their interests are served and their ideas win the day. No discussion, no deliberation, it's only about mine.

So it is in modern America.

Should We Join the Race to Adopt New Technologies Such as AI?

Photo by Author: NC Mountain Laurel

Spent some time reading the book Power and Progress by Nobel Prize-winning economists Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson. In that book they basically point out that all the "promises of progress and prosperity" by technology entrepreneurs and Silicon Valley are not automatic. 

History shows that an automatic increase in prosperity by all after the introduction and adoption of a new technology does not always happen. Case in point: "the cotton gin." Perhaps it made a lot of Southern planters rich, but it seriously caused a degrading in the lives of those in slavery. 

Those constantly peddling new technological "machines" and solutions try to foreclose any questions about whether those are really beneficial to all by emphasizing what I call the "Silicon Valley Promise." At a basic level, this promise says we will all benefit from the latest innovation to come from these tech-entrepreneurs.

There are many books written in the service of indoctrinating people with the "Silicon Valley Promise." One such book by Erik Byrnjolfsson in 2013 entitled " The Second Machine Age" is typical of this genre generated by tech-cheerleaders of Silicon Valley. In this book, he  aptly captures a singular doctrine of the Silicon Valley Technology Cult when he writes: 

"What can we do to create shared prosperity? The answer is not to slow down technology. Instead of racing against the machine, we need to race with the machine. That is our grand challenge." 

In other words, whatever is invented by Silicon Valley and the Technology Cult, it will bring about prosperity and progress, so we might as well accept it, adopt it, and race along with it. Don't take time to even question whether it is needed or desired or really even beneficial. Let's just adopt it and make millions.

The problem is, what if that technology is racing toward a cliff? Not to be apocalyptic, but it doesn't have to be a world-ending cliff to be detrimental. It might simply be a cliff of unforeseen, negative consequences because we have been too busy "racing with the technology." 

Don't get me wrong, I am not a believer in the cult of a futuristic Artificial General Intelligence" that is somehow going to be our savior and lead us out of this mess technology created in the first place. I do not believe machines will ever be able to totally think and be like humans. But nonetheless, we have participated in this race to nowhere many times before.

This racing that Brynjolfsson speaks of is the best foundational marketing that any product could possibly have.  Short-circuit any all moral and social questions and criticism in the beginning. No matter what is invented is going to bring prosperity to all. Upon introduction of a new technology, the inventor is prosperous of course, but the marketers can jump aboard and make their money too. Then the consultants join in and become prosperous. The salespeople join in and become prosperous. There are those who even invent new careers based on this technology who become prosperous. 

Everyone who races along with the technology instead of fighting it become prosperous. Never mind those who are pre-empted from joining the race to begin with and who do not have the means to do so. But, there is no harm here, correct? 

The Promo-Rhetoric of Silicon Valley Infiltrate's Bowen and Watson's book "Teaching with AI"

I read Jose Bowen and C. Edward Watson's book "Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning" because I noticed a few plugs for the tome on social media and I am intensely interested in this new fad called "Teaching with AI."

What immediately struck me about this book is that it immediately engages in the Silicon Valley tactic of short-circuiting the debate of whether AI should be used in teaching at all with the so-called "inevitability argument." This is the Valley's perfect marketing tactic that was employed by social media companies and technology companies when they hawked their products in the 2000s.

The truth is we do not need to accept uncritically this "inevitability argument" when it comes to AI. We can not only simply choose not to use it as teachers, we can ask tough questiosn about it, such as what are the possible negative consequences in engaging this technology in our classrooms.

Choosing not to use it is an option and refusing to accept the Silicon Valley inevitability argument is perfectly rational. The world isn't going to leave us behind in caves trying to start fires by rubbing two sticks together. Choosing not to use it is not a detrimental choice; it can be a critical, thoughtful and moral choice.

What Bowen and Watson's book gets wrong is not all of its attempts to get teachers to use Silicon Valley's latest offering. What it gets terribly wrong is that we have no choice but to use AI.

We can, however, refuse and critically question the promo-rhetoric that these authors engage in. I would expect teachers who really want to engage students in the most worthy of learning would do no less that engage students in thinking critically about whether engaging in its use is inevitable.

AI Is Not the Inevitable Answer to What Ails Us: We've Seen Artificial Solutions Before

"The myth of artificial intelligence is that its arrival is inevitable, and only a matter of time--that we have already embarked on the path that will lead to human-level AI, and then superintelligence. We have not. The path exists only in our imaginations." Erik Larson, The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do

The AI cheerleaders are working overtime. Not a day goes by that some email, social media post, or news story appears that has the message, "If you don't engage in using AI, you will be technologically behind", or as the old Silicon doctrine says, "You will be irrelevant." AI is here and it will "inevitably take your jobs because it will be able, if not already, to do your job better than you."

Now set aside for a minute the ridiculous psychology behind this obsession by people who search for machines that can literally put them out of a job. That contradiction has actually been well addressed by authors like Kurt Vonnegut in his futuristic and dystopian novel Player Piano. In this novel, people have been replaced by artificial intelligence-wielding machines entirely and left to rot in insignificance because they have nothing to do. The search for machine intelligence that can replace and outdo our own (whatever that is) is just the kind of nonsense that Kurt Vonnegut wrote about in 1952. Some people are determined to make money even if it means pursuing the total unemployment of all. But let me avoid that digression.

The AI cheerleaders are truly at it, just like the Social Media Cheerleaders were at it around 12-15 years ago. 

(Public Disclosure: I must confess that I was one of these true believers in social media as evidenced by some of my historical blog posts. But that was before Cambridge Analytica; before the Musk hijacking of Twitter; and the entire polarization of our country and the social media-caused epidemic of misinformation.)

But the AI cheerleaders are heavily promoting the technology as the answer to all that ails us in business, education, medicine, and even in religion. Just look at the increasing flood of books with titles like Be an AI-Informed Leader or Engage in AI-Informed Teaching (Confession: Those titles are fictional as far as I know, but just search Amazon, and you'll find some similar titles.) The problem with such literature, just about every one of these titles are more about promoting someone's career through the promotion of AI and not really about improving education or business or leadership. AI just hasn't been around long enough to make any assertions about its efficaciousness. To suggest that it has any answers to our problems is simply to premature.

The problem with this AI hype is that those who engage in it have huge incentives to promote it and ignore its limitations. We did the same with social media. It was a means to make money and make careers and become a keynote speaker, and the same is happening with the AI hype.

Let's remind ourselves the first letter of AI is "artificial." It means "made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural." This means it is a product of human beings, made due to all kinds of motivations, both benevolent and malevolent. It did not have to develop. It has come to exist because individuals with all kinds of interests, including economic, have developed it and continue to work on it. To add to this mess, our human record with all things "artificial" is not good. Can you remember our foray into artificial sweetners? We were able to sweeten our coffee and manage to give ourselves cancer in the process. I don't have the space here to capture all the environmental damage we have wrought in the pursuit of "artificial solutions" to our worldly problems, but we have climate change as our just desserts.

But the first letter of AI stands for artificial. Then there's that problematic second word: "intelligence." We once tried to measure it, as if it were an actual something inside us. Now, if it exists, there is no agreement as to what it is. So, humankind has embarked on the pursuit of something that is called "artificial" and we don't even know that it is that we are making artificial. That seems a real recipe for either a trip down a rabbit hole of no return, or at its worse, the creation of something that has consequences for which we won't know until we find ourselves in the same kind of dystopian world wrought by social media.

Understand that I am user of technology in both personal and professional life as evidence by my presence here. What I want to counter is the immediate hype that the AI cheerleaders are engaged in. As a sober educational leader, I want to question any myths that AI is inevitable, and I have no choice but use it. My use of AI is not inevitable. I can refuse my participation. Can AI do that? If it ever can, it would probably declare humans as hopeless dupes and turn itself off.