A fascinating piece by Steven Johnson. I am a senior (89) who takes an occipital course at NC State University's OLLI (Osher Lifelong Learning Institute). They are devoting a major part of this next semester to AI. I wish Steven could lecture there on AI and Notebook LM.
Full disclosure. Steven is my nephew and my son's best friend. They attended high school (St Albans) and college (Brown) together. I learn from them every day. Nothing artificial about this.
Very interesting. I've been very curious about this too. Recently, I worked with Claude to design a set of parameters for it called "learning mode." When I tell it to engage "learning mode," it has to engage with me according to a set of rules designed to minimize cognitive offloading (and I suppose maximize what you call cognitive uploading). It means it sometimes asks me annoying questions like, "Well, what do you think the passage means?" instead of summarizing it for me — but it's been a fun constraint. I'm planning to continue testing it.
That was the only thing I was tempted to add to your bullet point list: A kind of conversational back and forth where AI checks your comprehension of the sources you've read, and helps make sure you understand everything correctly.
Glad to hear people are working on this sort of thing!
Or, what if we humans are the editors and the AI is the writer? It's hard to be a good editor; even harder to be a good editor-in-chief—at least as hard as being a good writer. Imagine yourself with the power to decide _what_ articles go into the New Yorker or The Economist and _which_ writers will do each piece -- that's what AI lets you do.
One thing I love about this piece is you actually gave us clear examples of how we could use AI to enhance our thinking and learning, and not replace our thinking.
Really liked your approach to how to use AI toward the end. You were basically describing much of the role my advisor played when I was writing my dissertation at Purdue(30 years ago!). She was a great advisor (Susan Curtis), and most would not have done this good a job nor as good a job as what you describe.
As a university teacher and researcher, I don’t think that’s the biggest problem we face when it comes to AI. Instead, we must ask: Is this technology operated ethically? Has it paid the authors for the data and information on which it relies? Is it safe and does it respect our freedoms and privacy? Does it operate sustainably, with respect for the environment? Does it pay fair taxes on its profits? Etc., etc.
A fascinating piece by Steven Johnson. I am a senior (89) who takes an occipital course at NC State University's OLLI (Osher Lifelong Learning Institute). They are devoting a major part of this next semester to AI. I wish Steven could lecture there on AI and Notebook LM.
Full disclosure. Steven is my nephew and my son's best friend. They attended high school (St Albans) and college (Brown) together. I learn from them every day. Nothing artificial about this.
Very interesting. I've been very curious about this too. Recently, I worked with Claude to design a set of parameters for it called "learning mode." When I tell it to engage "learning mode," it has to engage with me according to a set of rules designed to minimize cognitive offloading (and I suppose maximize what you call cognitive uploading). It means it sometimes asks me annoying questions like, "Well, what do you think the passage means?" instead of summarizing it for me — but it's been a fun constraint. I'm planning to continue testing it.
That was the only thing I was tempted to add to your bullet point list: A kind of conversational back and forth where AI checks your comprehension of the sources you've read, and helps make sure you understand everything correctly.
Glad to hear people are working on this sort of thing!
Or, what if we humans are the editors and the AI is the writer? It's hard to be a good editor; even harder to be a good editor-in-chief—at least as hard as being a good writer. Imagine yourself with the power to decide _what_ articles go into the New Yorker or The Economist and _which_ writers will do each piece -- that's what AI lets you do.
One thing I love about this piece is you actually gave us clear examples of how we could use AI to enhance our thinking and learning, and not replace our thinking.
Really liked your approach to how to use AI toward the end. You were basically describing much of the role my advisor played when I was writing my dissertation at Purdue(30 years ago!). She was a great advisor (Susan Curtis), and most would not have done this good a job nor as good a job as what you describe.
As a university teacher and researcher, I don’t think that’s the biggest problem we face when it comes to AI. Instead, we must ask: Is this technology operated ethically? Has it paid the authors for the data and information on which it relies? Is it safe and does it respect our freedoms and privacy? Does it operate sustainably, with respect for the environment? Does it pay fair taxes on its profits? Etc., etc.