May 15 marked the holding of a Day on Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education, organized in collaboration with IVADO, a consortium funded by Quebec and Ottawa whose mission is to “accelerate the adoption of artificial intelligence” . According to what the media report to us, almost all of the panelists chosen to speak that day say that education must be computerized even more, on the pretext that artificial intelligence (AI) is “already here”. and that we have no choice but to adapt to it. Given the lack of importance granted to the critical point of view during this day, it seemed important to us to raise here the problems with this discourse in favor of “adaptation”.
A project imposed by GAFAM
Firstly, the development of AI and the computerization of schools are presented as natural developments to which we should absolutely submit. This attitude contributes to masking the true origin of the current choices. These technologies are developed by companies that do not aim for the common good, but for the maximization of profit. It should be remembered that the GAFAMs constitute the third largest economic power in the world. We cannot leave to these private and undemocratic powers the monopoly of the political decision concerning both the place of technology in society and that in educational establishments. We should add that the speed at which changes are currently being imposed contributes to evading critical reflection, which is nevertheless crucial.
Denial of the harmful effects of technology
Second, we refuse to seriously consider the risks to our children, in the school setting, and to society in general. Many studies demonstrate the harmful effects of the computerization of education and social relations, especially after the pandemic and the generalization of online school: loss of empathy, loneliness, isolation, anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, etc There is no evidence that machines have a significant positive educational effect. On the other hand, it is quite clear that they generate a lot of harmful fallout.
Why, then, continue to say that we have to adapt to it blissfully, without taking into account the problems that are however obvious? Isn’t it the responsibility of intellectuals and researchers to look reality in the face rather than practice what amounts to denial or jovialism? Be that as it may, genuine reflection cannot brush this aside, otherwise it will lead to crass irresponsibility.
What future do we want?
Third, it is said that we must adapt to the “world to come”. However, this representation of the world stems, let us not forget, from the fantasy of capitalists preoccupied with accumulating value, without regard to nature or to humans. However, it is certainly not the future that those we have given birth to choose when we take the trouble to listen to them.
We can also ask ourselves how the computerization of schools and of everything will make it possible to solve the challenges that are looming for future generations: the environment and the climate, social inequalities at all levels, shortages of water and energy worldwide, to name a few. Problems that the development of more efficient cybernetic machines will not solve in any way as long as our society is fueled by the madness of infinite growth.
The destruction of autonomy
In fact, we risk obtaining the opposite result: a growing alienation from autonomous machines, while we become less and less so. Historically, the relative independence of education presupposed a critical distance of the school from the short-sighted interests which dominate civil society or the sphere of economic exchange at any one time. It also meant developing autonomy and the ability to judge, to train active citizens.
From now on, the objective is quite different: it is, on the contrary, a question of creating a network, of connecting the school directly to the market and of preparing the workforce which the companies will need, of also preparing its retraining, the labor market being called “naturally” to change more and more quickly. This is understood, since it is rather the uncontrolled economy and technology that dictate the way forward: the key word now being: “adapt”! We will therefore not train the autonomous, active and critical citizens whose XXIe century is urgently needed.
Adaptation rhymes with resignation
The unidimensional “reflection” that reaches us after the day of May 15 only serves, in the end, to build the “social acceptability” of the already programmed virtualization of society and the education system, all legitimized by the reassuring discourse on “ethical guidelines”. We have, it seems, surrendered.
We stopped thinking that we could take a truly critical look at the delirium of Silicon Valley, a project of terrifying radicalism and violence that aims to integrate all human and natural reality into the Capitalist Machine. We have stopped believing that another society is possible and we try to lock our children into an outdated mode of development.
However, the society of technological and capitalist acceleration is heading towards the ecological wall at high speed. Let’s be clear: uncritical adaptation to this dynamic is alienation, and the absence of critical reflection feeds the “banality of evil”. We are just following the general movement driven by large companies, without thinking about it.
Timid “ethical beacons”, which leave aside the question of real and lasting risks – present and future – for our children and for society in general and leave intact the premise of the infinite growth of the economy and of machines, do not won’t fix anything. What is needed is to disconnect all this, the time to rethink a school and a society on a human scale and respectful of nature.