A few weeks back, I wrote a piece for the Bucks County Beacon in which I suggested some questions that you should ask your local district when they start making noises about incorporating AI into your district's schools. But I realized afterwards that I left a big question out, so I'd like to amend that earlier piece right here.
How committed is your district to paying the actual price?
This hit me in the midst of one of those on line conversations in which a journalist tried to explain that she doesn't use AI for, you know, the important parts of the writing, but just for things like research and fact-checking and proof-reading and editing. I suggested that this seemed like a bad idea, that AI was not particularly good at any of those things, and then I heard, from many posters, a new counter-argument.
I'm thinking of 2023 AI. The new, advanced super-duper bots are so much better. I needed to get my head out of the old, free bots.
The AI that just anyone can use, they seemed to be admitting, is inadequate. You have to step up to get the good stuff.
Now, I'm inclined to disbelieve assertions that newer, better AI can do human thinky stuff. But let's pretend the newer better AI is really newer and better in ways that matter.
This is, of course, a well-established computer tech model. You can have the free version, but it's, you know, broken. Here's a cool new app that will only work, sort of, for the 90 minute trial period. Here's a game that is really an ad delivery system. Here's photo editing software with no features.
It's a relatively new invention, this model. It used to be unimaginable that a dealership would sell you a new car that had some cool features that are broken until you pay extra to unlock them. Imagine buying a house and then discovering that none of the doors actually work (unless you hire some carpenters to come in and fix them).
Or, in a school setting, imagine buying a new set of textbooks, then discovering upon delivery that they are all missing several chapters, which you can purchase from the publisher for an extra fee.
So here's what you need to know from your district. When the super-cool features that sold your superintendent or tech procurement committee on this AI whiz-bangery in the first place, is your district committed to paying the new fees. When the teachers who are supposed to actually use this AI tool discover that real utility comes with an extra cost, will the district cough up the money? Or is the district's expectation that teachers will somehow make use of a piece of broken software?
Or will wealthy districts get the fully unlocked programs, while poorer districts will have to limp along with the demo model?
And when this year's model is supplanted by next year's hot new thing, will the district be committing to throwing more money at it? And what other funding will they cut in the district to get the money to feed their new AI habit? Because once FOMO gets in your blood, it's hard to kick the habit, and you can bet that vendors will keep right on warning that schools dare not get left behind by the newest inevitable shiny thing of tomorrow.
So that's the other question to ask your district when they start gazing longingly at AI-- just how far are they willing to go, and do they intend to keep shoveling money into the program, or will they ask teachers to get on the cutting edge with the broken version of last-year's already-cooling-off Hot New Thing.
Mind you, that's not the only question to ask (there are more here), but you cannot get a real answer to "What do we expect to actually get out of this, and is it worth the cost" if you don't take an honest look at the cost. Because whatever your district thinks the cost is, it's way more than that.
No comments:
Post a Comment