National Archives Employees Wore Their Critical Thinking 🧢 - Teachers Can Too.

National Archives employees modeled critical thinking about AI hype.

Use your freedom of speech to ask questions when presented with AI hype. Image source: The Wikimedia Commons.

404 Media is one the best sources for following “AI” and technology. They do outstanding work. For example, 404 recently documented that National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) employees witnessed “AI-mazing Tech-venture” in June 2024. The presentation included a live demonstration of Google’s Vertex AI, in which it pretended to be an “expert archivist.”

• ‘AI-Mazing Tech-Venture’: National Archives Pushes Google Gemini AI on Employees by Jason Koebler, October 15, 2024 for 404 Media.

NARA is going to use AI?

A quick aside: How terrifying is it that the National Archives is considering a technology that “is not well-matched to any application where the accuracy of the content matters,” according to computational linguist Dr. Emily M. Bender of the University of Washington? What could go wrong and further deteriorate our collective understanding of the truth?

Asking The Right Questions

What strikes me about the article is the questions employees asked and how they reflect critical thinking about “AI.” Here are the questions documented in the article:

• Why is generative AI calling itself an “expert archivist”?

• How easy is it to limit the data base that Gemini is using?

• How would the public know that they are receiving a response from an actual archivist and not from generative AI?”

• Would NARA disclose what aspects of reference are generated from AI?

• Are we able to opt out any data on google drive or our emails from Gemini?”

• Do you have any concerns that this product will malfunction similarly to how Google Search AI has recently?

• How do you plan to ensure NARA isn’t drawn into any copyright infringement issues by using AI models that are trained on web content?

• AI is meant to generate something that sounds like an answer—there are a plethora of cases of it spouting things that are completely wrong with an authoritative tone. How much are we going to be expected to rely on this in the future?

I have argued that critical thinking is the skill students and teachers need when considering “AI.”

National Archives employees pushing back with these questions is the perfect example of wearing a Critical Thinking 🧢 when considering “AI.” In my post, I added some questions teachers should ask about “AI” to apply their critical thinking skills:

• Will "AI" skills become invaluable when capitalist institutions such as Goldman Sachs and the RAND Corporation have joined the chorus of voices raising concerns about "AI"?

• Is students’ future employment tied to a technology that depresses purchasing decisions when mentioned in product descriptions?

• What can we learn from the widespread acclaim Procreate CEO James Cuda received when he said, “I really f***ing hate generative AI” and announced the app will have no AI features?

• Why are we basing pedagogical decisions on an environmentally unsustainable technology?

• Why must we “transform our schools” around a technology that violates US copyright law? As Former General Counsel, U.S. Copyright Office Jacqueline Charlesworth wrote in the Yale Law Journal, “…Each of the four factors of section 107 of the Copyright Act weighs against AI's claim of fair use, especially when considered against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving market for licensed use of training materials.”

• Why are teachers asked to change pedagogy around ChatGPT and Google Gemini when both are unavailable to students younger than 13 and require guardian permission for students aged 13 to 18?

• Why aren't predictions that there might not be enough data to sustain generative "AI" not as valid as predictions "AI" will revolutionize society?

• Can we wait until the inherent problems with generative "AI" are solved before we change instruction to accommodate it?

• Can we wait until generative "AI" shows any ability to generate a profit before declaring that effectively using it is the skill all students need?

A Call To Action

Teachers: When a speaker claims generative “AI” has pedagogical value or that we must fundamentally change school to accommodate an “AI world,” please interrogate those claims and ask questions. Be like the National Archives employees and put on your Critical Thinking 🧢.

If I show up at your school to speak about the harms, limits, and pedagogical concerns of generative “AI,” please put on your Critical Thinking 🧢 and ask questions. Interrogate my claims just like the National Archives employees modeled.

Continuing the Conversation

Does your school district need help critically addressing “AI”? I would love to work with you. Reach out on Twitter, email mistermullaney@gmail.com, or check out my professional development offerings.

Blog Post Image: The blog post image Norman Rockwell’s Freedom of Speech from The Wikimedia Commons.

AI Disclosure:

I wrote this post without the use of any generative AI. That means:

• I developed the idea for the post without using generative AI.

• I wrote an outline for this post without the assistance of generative AI.

• I wrote the post using the outline without the use of generative AI.

• I edited this post without the assistance of any generative AI. I used Grammarly to assist in editing the post. I have Grammarly GO turned off.