Do we have a solution?

To set limits to the expansion of what is for many – fortunately – a promising horizon.

What was something like that called in the Middle Ages?

To suppress everything we cannot manage, define, control?

To stop entering into temptations we cannot restrain?

Should we return to the model of the “one internet”, that of the sea that historian Maria Efthymiou identifies as an important space and mode of transporting goods and messages?

Is it really the “solution” to the “problem”?

What problem?

What is it that we must tame, rather than learn to design it, create it, enrich it, develop it, improve it?

What is it that we need to interpret, rather than escape from petty agendas and phobic attitudes that delay any maturity and limit any creativity?

We used to tell our children … “you are either one of those who plan and create … or you are one of those who follow and consume.”

There are suggestions…

Let’s use this technology to think, design and implement creatively, depositing our skills, our knowledge, but above all our values…

Let’s change the perspective from which we see things. Let’s move a little from our positions … let’s work together.

Let’s not dwell on superficial interpretation and games of first introduction to these complex technologies …and which, yes, are necessary for a start, but not an end in themselves.

Let’s go a level deeper, let’s get informed, let’s try to understand the what, the how, the why.

Let’s not leave technology and its evolution in the hands of the few (who have the skills to design it and the money to implement it), mainly out of ignorance or arrogance about what we cannot understand, … interpret.

Let us approach the situation in an investigative way, delving into aspects of ethics rather than suspicion, at cases of algorithmic bias, error and/or malicious use. (Robinson, 2020? Rodríguez-García, Moreno-León, Román-González, & Robles, 2020 – distinguishing between ethical and non-practical).

Let us question the correctness of the proposition, the correctness of the decision, the correctness of the operations, with an informed opinion … a product of effort and not of effortless arguments and opinions of superficial discussions. Here is a proposal that will help combinatorial thinking, critical thinking, researching, trial and error, participation, avoiding dogmatism…

Let us learn to compare proposals by creating common ground that leads to safer and more valid results.

Let us discover missing elements, identify them with intensity and broaden our thinking as team members synthesizing in a common effort, not as heretical voices that usually “pull” in the opposite direction the vehicle of innovation and evolution.

Innovation, after all, is also about doing things in a new way… not just new things.

Let us not leave this new knowledge to others, as we have learned about technology so far. It is a process that leads to distortions that can hardly be reversed afterwards.

Let us see all these achievements as tools towards enhancement of human beings not as substitutions, applying our suspicion where it is really needed.

Let’s not go so far as to admit that the teacher only transfers knowledge (something these new environments do well – it seems – and are improving very quickly).

Let’s embrace the view of Columbia professors like Oded Netzer that computer programmers will be helped by these technologies … not the OpenAI view that these technologies will replace some engineers.

Let’s bring up concepts like the duality of technology. Technology such as that of ChatGPT, for example, can be used to check the credibility of information and news (fact checking), empowering information and thereby enhancing democracy.

Let us all arm ourselves with critical faculties and combined thinking, so that it cannot also be used for the dissemination of falsified news that results in planned or unintentional misinformation of dangerous proportions.

Let’s bring to the foreground concepts like the duality of technology. Technology such as that of ChatGPT (for example) can be used to check the credibility of information and news (fact checking), empowering information and thereby enhancing democracy. Let us all guard ourselves with critical thinking and combined thinking so that it cannot also be used for the dissemination of falsified news that results in planned or unintentional disinformation of dangerous dimensions.

We have many aspects of inquiry at our disposal, sorting in whatever order we decide such as:

• The issue of evaluation at a cognitive and ethical level.
• The issue of preparing for future developments.
• The depth of penetration into the specific knowledge and behaviours.
• The issue of understanding the logic of the environments in which these technologies deliver the outcomes expected.
• The issue of linking technology and money invested in its development …or stemming/derived from it.
• The different levels of its use and/or exploitation.

Is it time to rethink the way we evaluate projects of all age students or even older projects? Is the essay now a golden deliverable as a piece of writing that we read, without also having full knowledge of the author’s attitudes or even habits on specific issues?

Is it time to put more emphasis and attention on the early stages of the writing process, so that we can better monitor our students’ progress, with more evidence of judgment and improvement in our arsenal?

Should we encourage the use of such tools whose recommendations will guide adaptation rather than be the subject of assessment?

Changes that are important, changes that are difficult, changes that tire those already tired of overwork… changes that stir the stagnant waters with dynamic approaches. After all, isn’t that how education should be, motivating and adapting? …a dynamic process full of surprises for everyone…