Why higher ed needs to listen to the contrarians in setting policies on using tools like ChatGPT in faculty work.

My husband said to me last night, "I don't understand your relationship to #AI." 😂 What can I say, I'm a Libra. I thrive in the paradox. #AI is not an either/or for me. My husband (and all of you tbh) is as likely to hear me discussing the possible benefit of building a #CustomGPT for #online, #asynch #faculty as he is hearing me rant that #AI is an existential threat to humanity. I am not pro-AI or anti-AI. I'm both and neither. P.S. If this post bothers you, you're probably a Virgo! ♍️ | 10 comments on LinkedIn

Over the years I have disagreed with pretty much everything that Thomas Arnett and the Christensen Institute have had to say about education (you can use the search function for the main blog to see), but Arnett's recent piece has some points worth thinking about.

I had the privilege of moderating a discussion between Josh Eyler and Robert Cummings about the future of AI in education at the University of Mississippi’s recent AI Winter Institute for Teachers.

Learning requires friction. Here’s how to get students to disclose and evaluate their own usage of tools like ChatGPT.

The mood around AI in education has taken a markedly darker tone of late.

Last week, Jefferey Young from Edsurge published a podcast episode When the Teaching Assistant is an ‘AI’ Twin of the Professor with an interview from me where I pushed back on this emerging trend of educators uploading their own writing to chatbots to create a “digital twin” for students to interact with.