Gary R., List: I take no issue with Mr. Weissman's use of "AI" as a teaching *tool*, and I strongly prefer that characterization of it to "thought partner." The two specific projects described below are much like having a group of historians impersonate the conference participants or visiting a museum exhibit that recreates what it was like to be a soldier in the trenches. "AI" systems can certainly facilitate such *simulated *experiences more easily and thus more widely.
Not allowing "AI" to become "a substitute for student thinking" is key. Writing is itself a method of thinking, so when students outsource even the first draft of a paper to "AI" systems, it is detrimental to the development of their thinking skills. In fact, I have a similar concern about well-established computer software in the engineering industry that has diminished the traditional practice of hand-sketching to work out the initial parameters of a design. Regards, Jon Alan Schmidt - Olathe, Kansas, USA Structural Engineer, Synechist Philosopher, Lutheran Christian www.LinkedIn.com/in/JonAlanSchmidt / twitter.com/JonAlanSchmidt On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 9:51 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> wrote: > List, > > A recent article in the *New York Times* ("This Teacher Has Doubts About > A.I. But He Won a Prize Using It." > https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/17/nyregion/teacher-prize-artificial-intelligence.html > ) > profiled Ian Weissman, a Manhattan high school social studies teacher who > won a $25,000 *Flag Award for Teaching Excellence*. Ironically, while > Weissman describes himself as "still a skeptic" about AI, one of the > reasons he was honored was for his innovative use of AI in history > education. > > At a highschool in Manhattan, Weissman developed immersive history > projects using AI. One project had students 'interview' AI-powered > historical figures involved in the 1884/85 Berlin Conference (convened > without a single African representative for the purpose of partitioning > Africa and establishing the rules for colonization). Another project > recreated the experience of soldiers in the trenches during World War I, > combining AI-generated images, sound effects, and historical simulations to > help students better understand the horrific wartime conditions. Weissman > emphasized that he principally uses AI as a tool for teachers and not at > all as a substitute for student thinking. His expressed goal is to deepen > engagement and historical understanding, not to replace traditional > teaching and learning or encourage students to outsource their work to > machines. > > Weissman acknowledges both the promise and risks of AI. As earlier > mentioned, he described the field as a "Wild West" with evolving rules and > uncertain and potentially dangerous consequences. While he believes AI can > be a valuable "thought partner" that enhances human thinking, he remains > very uncomfortable with the idea of it replacing teachers or diminishing > students' own intellectual work. > > I think that this story illustrates a middle path between enthusiastic > adoption and outright rejection of AI in education. Rather than replacing > teachers or student effort, AI may prove most useful when it helps create > richer learning experiences while preserving the central role of human > judgment, creativity, and inquiry. In addition the article touches on a > theme that has become increasingly of interest to me: how new technologies > affect the conditions of inquiry. In my view, the central question is not > whether AI should be used in education, but whether it strengthens or > weakens students' participation in the processes by which inquiry proceeds > and knowledge is acquired, tested, and understood. Weissman's approach is > noteworthy because he treats AI not as a replacement for inquiry but as a > tool for deepening engagement with it. > > The challenge for education as I see it is to ensure that when AI is > employed, that it enlarges the community of inquiry rather than allowing, > perhaps even facilitating students withdrawing from it. And, of course, > this principle can be extrapolated to inquiry more generally. > > Best, > > Gary R > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 4:35 PM Gary Richmond <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Laureana, >> >> It's wonderful to hear from you, especially as it's been a while. Of >> course I'm gratified that you liked my post on AI and intelligence. I'd be >> eager to hear your own thoughts on the matter. >> >> I'm currently working on a post in response to Jon's thought-provoking >> and challenging response to my most recent post in this thread, one which >> has modified my thinking on at least one facet of the topic. I'll be >> interested in what you think regarding that as well. >> >> Meanwhile, stay as cool as you can in this brutally hot weather. And >> let's plan on getting together for some philosophical discourse after it's >> cooled down a bit. >> >> Best, >> >> Gary >> >> On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 8:10 AM Laureano Batista < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Dear Gary, >>> >>> I hope this email finds you well. I thought your post yesterday on AI >>> and intelligence from a Peircean perspective was excellent and >>> illuminating. Bravo. >>> >>> Best, — L >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ► PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . ► <a href="mailto:[email protected]";>UNSUBSCRIBE FROM PEIRCE-L</a> . But, if your subscribed email account is not your default email account, then go to https://list.iu.edu/sympa/signoff/peirce-l . ► PEIRCE-L is owned by THE PEIRCE GROUP; moderated by Gary Richmond; and co-managed by him and Ben Udell.
