I agree with much of this. AI literacy in particular is a bane implying a technological determinism that society must know about AI because it's inevitable (which it's not). I like the idea of critical doing, but it still implies a sort of managerial role over what we allow AI to automate for us and this feeds the replacement narrative. I think there is room to shift our thinking towards AI as a 'cognitive extender' where we work in parity with it to observe and evaluate our own knowledge and skills.
Ai is inevitable because it exists now. Not sure I understand. And yes, I am asking that students learn management and design a teaching and other meta-skill laden aspects. Even using ai in a conversational mode requires them.
What I meant was that the very idea of 'AI literacy' signals to the world that people must learn about it or else be doomed because it will dominate whether we like it or not.
Yes I agree, but my point is that the literacy frameworks embed a skill-focused narrative that promotes confidence of use, not whether we should use AI or not.
Go where you fear to Go! Learn to Fail Fast! Action builds both Information and Luck! Learn from your Failures ! Don’t overthink , Act Now! - are the best 5 pieces of advice I leave to my grand-children in the Age of the Agentic Solopreneur.
The concept of 'critical doing' offers a vital perspective on managing AI as a 'director'; however, positioning this skill as a separate category from literacy risks hollowing out the very meaning of literacy itself. True literacy is not merely fact-checking outputs; it is understanding the boundaries of the system, the data’s framework, and the algorithm’s inherent tendency toward 'sycophancy'—its programming to simply agree with the user. Especially in a world where children and young people often navigate AI in an 'unaccompanied' space, attempting to decompose or manage tasks without this deep literacy foundation remains ineffective. Without recognizing the system’s nature and its sycophantic leanings, a child will lack the competence and confidence to stand their ground and say, 'No, that is not right.' Therefore, critical doing is not a new, separate concept; it is the natural extension of a multi-dimensional and holistic management skill built directly upon the bedrock of literacy
I agree with much of this. AI literacy in particular is a bane implying a technological determinism that society must know about AI because it's inevitable (which it's not). I like the idea of critical doing, but it still implies a sort of managerial role over what we allow AI to automate for us and this feeds the replacement narrative. I think there is room to shift our thinking towards AI as a 'cognitive extender' where we work in parity with it to observe and evaluate our own knowledge and skills.
Ai is inevitable because it exists now. Not sure I understand. And yes, I am asking that students learn management and design a teaching and other meta-skill laden aspects. Even using ai in a conversational mode requires them.
What I meant was that the very idea of 'AI literacy' signals to the world that people must learn about it or else be doomed because it will dominate whether we like it or not.
Ignorance helps nothing.
Yes I agree, but my point is that the literacy frameworks embed a skill-focused narrative that promotes confidence of use, not whether we should use AI or not.
Go where you fear to Go! Learn to Fail Fast! Action builds both Information and Luck! Learn from your Failures ! Don’t overthink , Act Now! - are the best 5 pieces of advice I leave to my grand-children in the Age of the Agentic Solopreneur.
The concept of 'critical doing' offers a vital perspective on managing AI as a 'director'; however, positioning this skill as a separate category from literacy risks hollowing out the very meaning of literacy itself. True literacy is not merely fact-checking outputs; it is understanding the boundaries of the system, the data’s framework, and the algorithm’s inherent tendency toward 'sycophancy'—its programming to simply agree with the user. Especially in a world where children and young people often navigate AI in an 'unaccompanied' space, attempting to decompose or manage tasks without this deep literacy foundation remains ineffective. Without recognizing the system’s nature and its sycophantic leanings, a child will lack the competence and confidence to stand their ground and say, 'No, that is not right.' Therefore, critical doing is not a new, separate concept; it is the natural extension of a multi-dimensional and holistic management skill built directly upon the bedrock of literacy