[REFLECTION] Converting to AI responsiveness this Lent

The swift changes that artificial intelligence brings to higher education is perhaps the main preoccupation of educators today. I myself am taking a course designed to train teachers on how to integrate AI into teaching. Teachers are now being called to “repent” from being AI-defensive to being AI-responsive.

Since AI’s rollout, teachers have chosen three attitudes towards it: fanatic, defensive, or responsive. Those who are AI-fanatic believe a technology boost solves all problems. They use GenAI without question and pause. They think that future work will mean greater reliance on AI and that any form of regulation won’t stop anyone from using it.

At the other end of the spectrum are the AI-defensive. They see technology as a threat to good education, which is training in self-reliance and individualistic labor. They descend from the long line of old-schoolers who do not believe that self-respecting people should be caught using calculators, personal computers, and online banking. 

While I didn’t revert to proctored examinations, I am guilty of asking students to submit handwritten work. Some of my colleagues added an oral component to writing assignments. One possible reaction to AI is to make sure students do not use them surreptitiously, demanding full disclosure of AI utilization. Never mind if the teacher unwittingly uses it or that they will have to stubbornly refuse employing AI. 

Consequently, an AI-defensive approach has made student work tedious, adding to the feeling of being overwhelmed. Exams have also become timebound as they need to be performed in the presence of the teacher.

Instead, teachers are encouraged to exercise empathy and seek balance between a no-holds-barred attitude towards student use of AI and one that wishes that AI was not invented. Experts call this being AI-responsive. Here the instructor combines human competency (foundational knowledge, critical thinking, discipline expertise, and unaided skills) and judicious consumption of GenAI tools. On the one hand, classes need to train and assess students in their AI skills; on the other hand, they also need to develop skills without using AI. 

What is the process of becoming AI-responsive? Classically defined, conversion is a sudden or a gradual process of radically transforming the self for the better. A more contemporary approach looks at conversion as an ongoing, rational process of self-realization. It is a phenomenon usually following a period of stress and involves resolving life difficulties (Zinnbauer, B.J., & Pargament, K.I., 1998). How would a rational and drastic change look like in the age of artificial intelligence?

One recent example of not being responsive is the story of award-winning author Laura Kelly Fanucci. After the killing of Renee Good by a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent, Fanucci was gravely disappointed by the homily on the Sunday of the Lord’s Baptism. The preaching didn’t utter a single word about how the horrific event was affecting their community in Minnesota. As she said, “Saying something is better than saying nothing.”

Responsiveness is bringing the Good News in conversation with the needs and aspirations of the people we serve. It is a reasonable process resembling any other kind of conversion. It requires deep listening and the recognition of the signs of the times. In order to respond well, we need to be attuned to what is going on around us, to understand the changes happening around us, as well as within us. 

Furthermore, we ought to become aware of the need of the people we want to help. This means that teachers make sure that tasks become challenging and not simply tedious. This would mean basically not shutting ourselves off from this invention, which is very much in its infancy. It entails a willingness to experience it ourselves. 

Responsiveness is trusting that with the intention to learn and to transform, the use of artificial intelligence can find balance. We weigh convenience and genuine understanding of the opportunities and wonders it presents. 

Grateful for this new technology, the AI-responsive teacher relies on the words of the Gospel: “Which one of you would hand his son a stone when he asks for a loaf of bread, or a snake when he asks for a fish? If you then, who are wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give good things to those who ask him?” (Mt. 7: 9-11).

Just like all of us, artificial intelligence is a work in progress. Lent, which simply refers to the Season of Spring, is not a question of perfection or not making mistakes. If anything, it is becoming responsible for our own mistakes. 

Becoming responsive means cultivating a beginner’s mind. Shunryu Suzuki says: “In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities. In the experts’ there are few.” Heeding the call to be responsible and responsive, Lent is about openness to the world and all that it offers. The practice of Lent is not to abscond the world but to embrace it. Having been saved by Christ’s death on the Cross, we trust that the world offers us nourishment — bread and not stone, fish rather than snakes. – Rappler.com

Jovino G. Miroy teaches medieval philosophy and philosophy of religion at the Ateneo de Manila University. He holds a PhD from Katholieke Universiteit te Leuven in Belgium, with a specialization in medieval philosophy, and is a member of the American Cusanus Society. He is the producer of the podcast titled “Thomas Unveiled,” commemorating the Double Jubilee of Thomas Aquinas.