There are few public affairs or civic issues more important than how we’re educating our kids as a society in the age of AI. Large language models are here to stay and, if used properly, can be a boon to student’s critical thinking and social skills.

The idea of simple knowledge transfer is among the positive roles of AI. So the university lecture, where a PhD professor walks through a textbook to (some) note-taking students who are actually present in physical seats, is becoming a relic.  

Instead, as Gilman argues in his piece, AI makes the case for a return to the seminar-style, live human dialogue (not monologue), problem solving and simulation. The more ancient ways of the academy, if you will. More like a monastery, as one writer noted, with low-tech introspection.

Face-to-face encounters that build trust, mold values, demand critical thinking, make a persuasive argument, set goals, solve problems, cultivate originality in thought and personality.

It’s these activities —which AI can’t do —that parents and students should be paying for. 

A university brings all kinds of young people together into one physical place. It should take advantage of its unique value proposition as a fertile, non-digital garden that preps young people for the workplace; that builds “cognitive endurance;” that shows students how to problem solve with each other in community; and reinforces that humanity is the master of tech tools like AI.

Not the other way around.