The arrival of new technology has always created a stir – especially when it comes to young people. In 1982, the UK Parliament published the Cockcroft Report, which, among other things, looked at introduction of the electronic calculator. “It is feared that children who use calculators too early will not acquire fluency in computation nor confident recall of basic number facts,” it stated. “These fears are understandable and should not be ignored.”
The internet – originally available in the early 1990s to a small number of specialists with advanced computers – is now ubiquitous. For some observers who witnessed the mass adoption of the web, digital technology has had a questionable effect on young people’s ability to think critically. Sven Birkerts, an American essayist and author of 1994’s The Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age was an early sceptic, warning against the rise of what he called “horizontal reading” – young minds skimming and surfing through text, confusing access to information with deep understanding.
In Dubai this week, the debate continued, except that AI is now the technology under the spotlight rather than pocket calculators or the classroom computer. At the Futurists X Summit last Monday, Prof Henrik von Scheel, co-founder of Strategic Intelligence, the company that provides future trends reports to the World Economic Forum, cautioned against an over-reliance on large language models like ChatGPT that make it easier for young people to get answers in seconds. The ability to always have the right response at one’s fingertips, Prof von Scheel claimed, overshadowed the important role that failure plays in the learning process; removing failure would be damaging for young people who want to learn and improve.
AI, as with other innovations before it, throws up significant challenges. Some propose limiting young people’s access to AI-enabled tools, especially LLMs or platforms that assist with writing and editing. Indeed, many AI products already come with some form of parental control settings. However, although the case for curtailing unlimited AI access from young people is well made, it comes with some caveats.
Digital literacy is better thought of as a life skill today. Leaving young adults unprepared for the digital world by impeding their use of AI may do more harm than good. Uneven implementation of AI restrictions could also exacerbate inequality – young people from more affluent backgrounds or societies will likely still enjoy better access to AI while others miss out, thereby widening educational gaps.
The UAE has been an early adopter of AI, so it is an apposite place to have such debates. Policies that support the critical and responsible use of AI in schools and universities, such as those seen in the Emirates, could form the basis of a balanced approach, one that regards AI not as a crutch but as a sparring partner. Yes, someone could research their academic degree with the help of ChatGPT or Gemini – but ideally, they will have the critical reasoning skills to be able to defend it in person, too.
Birkerts was right to see the value in traditional methods of learning and reading, especially as they pertain to our inner lives and our ability to think deeply and originally about the world. He was also right that it is our approach and adaptation to new technology that is the important thing. “It would be wrong to lay all the blame at the feet of technology,” he wrote “but more wrong to ignore the great transformative impact of new technological systems – to act as if it's all just business as usual.” Conversations such as those taking place in the UAE will be important in forging the rights steps for the future.
