While educators persist in the belief that AI can't create relationships with us, AI's begin to forge relationships with us. This we see the example of 'BabyX'. Right now we sense a feeling of unease, known as an 'uncanny valley', because the AI's responses aren't quite right. But, "Walters suspects the feeling of uncanny valley will disappear over time as people grow more accustomed to interacting with humanoid robots and simulations." The key issue here, though, is not whether we will form attachments with these AIs. We will. It will be the question of whether these AIs will be benign. I saw on CBC today (no link yet) a story about a doll that talks with children and sends the data back to its manufacturers. This is data that can be (and therefore will) be misused.
I downloaded this so you don't have to. My advice? Don't. eLearning Industry will require that you sign in with your LinkedIn credentials, then require additional information if they're not satisfied with what LinkedIn provides. Then you'll get a 32 page PDF (a far cry from the book that appears in the illustration). The first 11 pages cover a well-worn path outlining mobile learning in general. The explanation of xAPI and cmi5 is minimal and consists mostly of a case study. Yes, xAPI is not the new SCORM. Yes, cmi5 was originally designed as AICC's replacement for SCORM, but is now an xAPI profile. The case studies are: PDF and annotation in the cloud; videos and microlearning. This could be a perfectly good white paper but don't be oversold by the marketing and don't overpay with the LinkedIn permissions.
It's not easy managing crowdsourcing in support of learning outcomes, writes the author. "Crowdsourcing, in general, tends to be a unilateral, one-way experience used for social computing, problem solving, and creative product development." The question is, how can crowds give individuals high-quality feedback? The crowd itself has to be able to learn, which requires some for of scaffolding. " Learning is incremental and expands as the crowd becomes more familiar and experienced with the framework and language used to give feedback."
The program appeared to be successful, but was closed. Why? The story seems to be this: "it seems Udacity doesn’t really need the job guarantee program anymore to attract new Nanodegree students, and that may be one of the reasons why Udacity has decided not to pursue Blitz further." A second reason could be that it cot too much for Udacity to operate, as it had to set up agreements with companies to hire the graduates.
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe, Click here.
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.
Copyright 2017 Stephen Downes Contact: email@example.comThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.