Confronted with the suggestion that we should get an AI friend or AI carer, many of us are up in arms. Yet, confronted with the suggestion that we should have a long text summarized by an AI assistant, our reactions are mixed. What’s the big deal?
Confronted …
Published by Martin Lenz
In addition to running the Handling Ideas Blog, Martin Lenz is professor of philosophy at the FernUniversität in Hagen. He specialises in medieval and early modern philosophy. View all posts by Martin Lenz
Published
In case you want to hear an honest answer… I think there are texts that we should definitely not summarize because the act of reading and trying to understand them trains cognitive skills and imagination, or is simply fun. BUT there are so many academic papers about 40 to 50 pages long where the content could be summarized on just one page (the rest is just argumentative structure). I don’t see why reading an AI summary is bad in this case.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks! (Btw: It’s a genuine question. I posed it not because I have an answer but because I find it interesting to think about.)
I think you’re right that we should continue to engage with texts, while we might consider a subset of texts as mere tools.
My current take on it is that there are kinds of activitiies that are continuous between the two examples: taking care of someone, helping someone, summarizing a piece of writing for someone etc. These are, in many cases, not merely actions but actions for someone, hence they have an interactive quality. So part of my point is that in both cases we outsource very human interactions.
So a worry following from this is that, by outsourcing cognitive labour, we might not just ‘deskill’ but outsource interactions that are good to keep alive.
LikeLike
Okay, thanks! Once we distinguish between “tool” texts, which AI can summarize, and texts that students can actively discuss, I see no harm in using AI. On the contrary, AI could provide an opportunity for students to (re)discover the value of reading and sharing thoughts, simply because they will have more time and capacity left. But maybe I am too optimistic here?
LikeLiked by 1 person