Jeffery Harvey
A colleague gifted this title to me after having picked it up at a conference. I sat on it for a while, not particularly in the mood to read what appeared to be a handbook. Further, where I teach, we advocate for the use of AI as a "learning partner." Usage as defined in this book felt more utilitarian.
Further, I have a trained relationship with AI. As a consultant working with public and private sector entities, AI is not going anywhere, and it is fast becoming ubiquitous. The expectation is that work is AI-supported. I have been working with various AI tools to attempt to find where it makes things easier or more efficient, without robbing me of my voice (through writing). Academically, my usage is more reflective, and while it pushes my thinking, it creates substantial validation work. I have found benefits in both settings, but I find myself concerned about the environmental implications. I am concerned about access to AI exacerbating various inequities. Of course, I am concerned that usage stunts critical thinking and devalues the authenticity of art.
All of that comes together as I think about this text.
Once I paused my general unease, I was pleasantly surprised.
Bowen and Watson strike a balance between pure utility and design, reflection, and human development. I appreciated that. It was a handbook in the sense that there were numerous sample prompt and assignment ideas. Yet, I found myself in the proper headspace to look at those prompts and ideas as just that - prompts and ideas. They were thought-provoking than constraining. I thought about them through the lenses of the courses I teach (and can see myself teaching soon). The authors are certainly believers, but they frequently note the importance of preserving one's voice. They talk of AI extending and supplementing one's skills, not replacing them. They put the responsibility for ensuring access on the professors who guide student usage. The authors also pointed out that "easy" is a mirage when it comes to AI. The prompt engineering necessary to get it to churn out B+ or higher-level work is deceptively simple (something validating by my own experience).
I can't yet say if we've opened the door for the devil, but this stranger at our table is indeed strange. Work is necessary to make AI a true net good, when all things are considered. I hope we remain mindful of that.
A colleague gifted this title to me after having picked it up at a conference. I sat on it for a while, not particularly in the mood to read what appeared to be a handbook. Further, where I teach, we advocate for the use of AI as a "learning partner." Usage as defined in this book felt more utilitarian.
Further, I have a trained relationship with AI. As a consultant working with public and private sector entities, AI is not going anywhere, and it is fast becoming ubiquitous. The expectation is that work is AI-supported. I have been working with various AI tools to attempt to find where it makes things easier or more efficient, without robbing me of my voice (through writing). Academically, my usage is more reflective, and while it pushes my thinking, it creates substantial validation work. I have found benefits in both settings, but I find myself concerned about the environmental implications. I am concerned about access to AI exacerbating various inequities. Of course, I am concerned that usage stunts critical thinking and devalues the authenticity of art.
All of that comes together as I think about this text.
Once I paused my general unease, I was pleasantly surprised.
Bowen and Watson strike a balance between pure utility and design, reflection, and human development. I appreciated that. It was a handbook in the sense that there were numerous sample prompt and assignment ideas. Yet, I found myself in the proper headspace to look at those prompts and ideas as just that - prompts and ideas. They were thought-provoking than constraining. I thought about them through the lenses of the courses I teach (and can see myself teaching soon). The authors are certainly believers, but they frequently note the importance of preserving one's voice. They talk of AI extending and supplementing one's skills, not replacing them. They put the responsibility for ensuring access on the professors who guide student usage. The authors also pointed out that "easy" is a mirage when it comes to AI. The prompt engineering necessary to get it to churn out B+ or higher-level work is deceptively simple (something validating by my own experience).
I can't yet say if we've opened the door for the devil, but this stranger at our table is indeed strange. Work is necessary to make AI a true net good, when all things are considered. I hope we remain mindful of that.