Betrice recognition mirror — Read transcript
Automatically transcribed from the recording; some words may need correction.
The first time a student handed in something obviously written by AI, I remember thinking, right, what do we do with this? Because I could understand the panic. If a student can generate an essay in 30 seconds, what exactly am I assessing? But I also knew we weren't going to solve this by pretending AI didn't exist. These young people are going to grow up with it. So I came into Dialogic with a very practical question. What am I supposed to teach them now? I started with AI literacy, not prompting, literacy, understanding how these systems work, questioning what they produce, knowing what information to protect, recognizing when you're starting to hand over your own judgment. Then I experienced the dialogic human expansion system, and something clicked. I was using AI, but I was doing more thinking, not less. I had to explain what I understood, notice where I was confused, challenge something the AI had said, make decisions about where the learning went next. The intelligence wasn't removing the difficulty, it was helping me stay inside it. That completely changed the question for me. Maybe the challenge isn't, how do we stop students using AI to do their work? Maybe it's, what capacities do young people need so they can use AI without gradually becoming less able to think, judge, and create for themselves? That's a very different educational problem. So now I'm experimenting. What happens if students critique an AI answer rather than submit one? What happens if they have to explain why they disagree? When should they use AI? When should they deliberately work without it? I'm less interested now in policing the technology. I'm interested in developing the person using it, because AI is going to become more capable. That's almost certain. The educational question is whether the young person alongside it becomes more capable, too.