My current read is “Player Piano” by Kurt Vonnegut. In this book, Vonnegut imagines a future that is dominated by supercomputers, a world where human labor gets superseded by technology. Obviously, this book is ripe with commentary about how the rise of technology is enabled, and accelerated by, capitalism. In this society, the only people able to flourish are those who have knowledge of how to troubleshoot the machine if things aren’t running smoothly (managers and engineers)- who must also be willing to act as champions of this technology- while the rest of the world lives in destitution. The wealthy class idealizes, and infantilizes, the lifestyle of the poor civilians, adopting it as an aesthetic. Being so thoroughly enmeshed with technology ultimately cuts them off from their fellow humans.

This vision of the future is hyperbolic, but not far off. AI has taken the world by storm in a relatively short period of time, and in that time we have already seen AI art threaten the jobs of creative people. We have seen strikes from writers and actors demanding protection of their likenesses and art from misuse by AI technologies. But it’s not just creatives who are under attack. The other day, I saw a video, altered by AI, of the model Bella Hadid speaking out in support of Israel- which is disturbing because Hadid, in real life, has been a vocal advocate for Palestinian liberation and would never consent to her likeness being used in this type of propaganda ( the video can be found here, by the way: https://twitter.com/DanelBenNamer/status/1718355794297503881.) Vonnegut’s fears of an era where technology has advanced to such a degree that it poses a danger, are coming true.

For ethical reasons I feel that it is irresponsible to use generative AI technology in the classroom when we have evidence that it learns from every piece of information that we feed into it, when we know that in using it, we are in essence, training it. However, I concede that ignorance is not an option. Whether we like it or not, these technologies are becoming integrated into our lives. Students need to be having these conversations about how technology should be regulated and who that responsibility falls to.

This is why I am a big fan of the experiment conducted by Jentery Sayers. To The professor conducting this experiment devises a hypothetical, futuristic scenario where a bot is tasked with reading the entrance exam essays that will determine whether or not students get into a University Program. The genius of this experiment is that it forces students to think about their own boundaries and levels of comfort related to technology.

No, we should not be in denial that technology advances, but that does not mean a healthy dose of skepticism is not in order. Our first instinct should not be to uncritically hail these technological advancements as harmless feats of ingenuity because there are very real repercussions that come along with them- after the shine of a new Iphone wears off, we are left to come to terms with the very real and crippling problem of technology addiction. Technology is so normalized for these students that they rarely if ever get a chance to think about the ways in which using it may be causing them damage, and the classroom provides a valuable platform for that discussion that we would be remiss not to take advantage of.