I have been following the output of UNESCO on AI for some time, even debated against them (twice). It has been a dispiriting experience. Rthare then useful effort and adice it remains mired in abstract and often irrelevant frameworks. This is the world of conferences and reports, not the real world.
There is a stark contrast between US and EU, between the affirmative, voluntary and guidance approach of the US and regulatory approach of the EU.
The US is forging ahead in education, their companies and Universities now way ahead of the EU. Most of the technology comes from the US, with few European examples. The investment in the US dwarfs that of the EU. Meanwhile, the EU sinks into in a vale of despondency, it's Universities doing little, innovation way behind.
The Chair, while talking about bias, becomes hopelessly biased seconds later and makes a big blunder by calling the 'EU' AI Act as the 'European' AI Act. That is quite simply wrong. Thankfully there are countries in Europe that are not in the EU or subject to this act. And China is notably sidelined, yet they have some excellent legislation that has been in place for a long time.
There is something odd, very Davos, about these people flying all over the world to discuss AI and ethics, especially when their core principle was, and I quote 'Climate friendly AI'! In truth UNESCO is irrelevant here. The world is using this technology, paying no regard to the millions of words these aloof world bodies throw out on their websites..
This may sound harsh but these top-down entities have no really useful role to play here. Mired in the rhetoric of 'values' they mean THEIR 'values'. This is not a revolution led by UNESCO, UN, OECD or any other of these bodies. They join the bandwagon long after it left town.
This is a shame, an opportunity lost. Rather than push the really positive, innovative and exciting opportunities, they sit on sofas, reading from prepared scripts and screens, remote from the actual technology and its uses. It's wholly performative - exceptionally well paid people harking on about the poor. Indeed they simply duplicate, at great cost, the same old long reports, frameworks and documents and statements, which are largely ignored, as the real world moves on paying them little or no regard.
In truth this AI shift is bottom up, driven by product releases, users and use. That's why their Teacher Competences document is mostly repetitive rhetoric. It will have no real impact, as it is far too abstract. The group is loaded with AI and Ethics people, low on people who have any actual experience in the application of AI in learning. This means a ton of abstract talk about ethics. The word 'ethics' is mentioned on almost every page.
Teachers are teachers, not experts on ethics. The idea that they need to be competent in judging ethical issues at the political and technical level is very odd. All empty theory, low on practice. I've seen competency frameworks all my adult life - they're usually empty exercises by a mixture of academics and people who have little real practical experience and often ignored or out of date by the time they hit the press.
The problem with a competency framework, is that they need real examples. Banging on about competences in ethics is completely misguided. That is not the role of the teacher. It's easy to conjure up little pyramids with these words but without practical guidance, it's yet another document.
You can read the entire document as a teacher, and to be honest, be none the wiser about what you actually need to do in your job.
No comments:
Post a Comment