I can see the reasoning, but there's an important way in which it is wrong. Here's the assertion being made in the article: "Being an AI-first institution is certainly not about chasing the latest tools or superficially focusing on staff and student 'AI literacy.' It is about embedding AI thoughtfully in every part of the university. Leaders need to articulate vision, model ethical behaviour, build staff capacity and student ability to become next generation AI leaders." I get that. But viewed from a slightly different perspective, the same sentence says this: "take every part of an institution that exists now, and apply AI to it." And that can't be right. It's like saying, "take every part of a train, and add flight to it." If AI is anything like what we think it will be, many parts of institutions won't exist, new parts will be added, and the focus and purpose of the institution will have changed.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
