I'm struggling with a similar issue. I've recently gone back to school to do an MFA - and I'm dealing with a lot of fear over the technology and an unwillingness to have a real discussion about it. I find that people have learned how to shut down the conversation with opposition rather than a willingness to have real academic discussions about it. I wanted more. I wanted more nuanced conversation - wanting people to be willing to really look beyond the hype cycle - by hype I mean both for and against - and have a real conversation about where the technology fits. Instead I find that a few people have learned how to object in a way that shuts down the entire conversation.
thanks Rebecca--for reading and sharing! Yeah, I understand the shutting down, I think both of us were doing that in the conversation....and I'm thinking about how do we help to keep people from turning off so quickly or retreating back to positions--it's clearly a larger issue than AI (:::looks at around at the world:::)....
I don’t think the persons comment was about GenAI. It was a globalized concern about lack of human connection and a feeling of helplessness in the face of corporate and tech priorities being imposed (or seemingly imposed) on academic values. In other words, stuff way beyond the scope of your talk. I’ve faced similar questions in presentations I’ve given. Once someone characterizes a tech as “evil”, you’re having an entirely different conversation.
agreed about the larger focus of the comments...and in many ways, they're angst about human connection are akin to mine...beyond the scope and also, for some, if they can reconcile the big picture, it makes it really hard to get to the application/smaller scope....
your points give me some good thinking about how I might acknowledge that more from the start--thank you!
I don’t think I would have been any better in the moment. But I believe that where many of these fears stem from, including my own, is the lack of choice. We’re told we have to use these tools or get left behind, and I don’t know that this is the case. I would assert that we have to learn about these tools, how they work, and how they might impact us. Then we can make the decision to use them or not. I also want to give my students the choice to use them or not. We live in a world where we have the illusion of choice (hundreds of options for dinner) but not when it really matters (healthcare, politics, housing, etc.)
I also fear that we may be making the same mistakes that we made with social media. We hyped it for years until it was too late to undo the damage. I have students now who are choosing to not have a social media presence and they are the better for it.
The lack/illusion of choice is real and embedded throughout the academic structure (e.g. the LMS, frequency & timing of courses, and more). It’s one more part of that larger cascade of creeping demands.
I think that’s really interesting about students choosing to not have social media. I’d be curious what their context is because I also think about what does it mean to not have a digital presence. If the google search happens between application and interview, what is kind of capital do students have to avoid or not participate in digital spaces to present themselves (curated or otherwise). It reminds me of how supposedly big tech leaders don’t have their kids using the same technology they sell but also, they have aupairs private schools, robust and expensive extracurricular activities and the like that means whatever gaps from being in that space aren’t missed. Anyway—a bit of a tangent :)
Amber - I can relate to your position: Use AI or be left behind. This was a similar position nearly every video editor confronted when the computer-based non-linear video editing systems matured into commercial viability in the mid-/late-1990s. (I worked in TV commercial post-production in NYC).
The "old-school" editors worked with film, and then with videotape players - never touched a computer in their life. Yet, the clientele began to recognize the creative benefits of working with an editor using an AVID Media Composer (instantaneous multiple non-destructive revisions, like word processing) tilted the marketplace toward editors who were versatile on the AVID and Adobe software. It didn't matter if the "old school" editors were actually better editors. That's not what the clients wanted.
In reality, the editors that did not adapt were literally run out of business. Perhaps this is not exactly the same with AI since the AVID was such a specialized tool. Yet, it was clear to me in my emerging career that the better jobs were going to the editors who not only knew how to edit in the purely traditional sense, but who could also do graphics compositing, sound design, text animation, color correction, and music editing (all on one software platform).
We can choose not to participate in the AI hype, but at our own peril.
I am so sorry you encountered this Lance. I hope you know your recognition and bringing this conversation out into the open will help others of us out here-to navigate as we [all] move forward. AI isn't going away and 'the fear' out there is real. I agree with some of the others, who left comments, we need to keep bringing in the human connection and critical thinking around the use of AI. Then again, ask me in another 6 months after the fall semester is over....I'm going to bet I too will have similar stories to share here. Meanwhile, we must stay strong and keep moving forward-for the sake of our students and our own sanity.
Accusing someone of being a shill for AI is like accusing someone of being a shill for electron microscopes, CRISPR, or transistors. I understand it, but it reflects a presumption of malevolence. Add one more member to The Pessimists Archive! [https://pessimistsarchive.org/]
If I had the presence of mind being in the same position, I might have said,
"So, what is the alternative? Should we remain passive about AI while others define what it is, what it can do, and who benefits from it? Or do we do invest the time and effort to define it on the terms that matter to us? Maybe it's transformative, or maybe it's just parlor tricks - we have to find out. That is what scholars do: We ask questions, we try things out, we measure the effects and consequences, and report to the community with our best interpretation. I still drive a car and mow the lawn with a combustion engine. I would rather not, but the world is imperfect and I have limited resources. In the meantime, I can make sound decisions that take all stakeholders into consideration. Next question."
This moment captures something that many of us are quietly carrying: the tension between curiosity and fear, and the difficulty of bridging that gap.
What sounded like a critique of AI may have been more of a cry about disconnection, about jobs, meaning, and feeling unseen in systems that often feel indifferent. That's not just about tech. That's about trust. And many of us feel that in different ways, even if we express it differently.
What's powerful here is that instead of doubling down, you opened up. Your willingness to sit with the discomfort of being misunderstood and to reflect afterward on what you wished you'd said offers a rare template for staying curious instead of reactive. It doesn't surprise me at all -- it's par for the course for you.
Maybe the deeper invitation isn't to defend or dismantle AI, but to learn how to be less alone while making sense of it. And that feels like the kind of learning that might matter most.
I'm curious: for those reading this who've felt caught in similar moments, what helps you stay open to someone's deeper concern when their words feel like an attack? And how might we create more spaces where uncertainty feels safe enough to voice, rather than defaulting to positions we have to defend?
This was such an honest and necessary reflection. Your vulnerability and willingness to unpack the layers of that moment—both personally and publicly—really models the kind of discourse we should be having around GenAI. Thank you for not shying away from the complexity. 👏🧠
Great reflection, Lance. And I'm sorry this happened to you.
I've had this happen a few times to me, though never in as stark of language as this person ("shill.") That's pretty harsh and tells me the person is not thinking critically about the situation or listening closely to what you are saying.
The part that stands out for me is "I came here to learn about something that AI can do that human beings can't..." To me, that's a dead giveaway that this person has the wrong mindset.
If that's what a person is looking for, they are always going to be disappointed -- because if they find it, they will likely feel despair at the idea that it's replacing us in some way.
If they DON'T find it, then they will likely feel anger at the idea that it's taking over the world when it's not that good. It's a lose-lose approach. If I could have a 1:1 with that person, I might say "Don't look for things that it's better than humans at doing, look for ways it can support you and your students to expand thinking. They might exist, they might not, depending on your context, and it will likely depend on your approach."
In my experience doing workshops and talks, the pointed questions and/or criticisms tend to come from one of two camps -- the environment-focused group and the IP-focused group. Their questions are borderline impossible to answer, especially when the speaker's focus (mine) is assessment, critical thinking, curriculum, academic integrity policies, etc. So I always start my answers with "I am not an environmental expert, energy expert, or intellectual property lawyer." Probably an obvious starting point, but it tends to calm the situation.
I also would share that I always try to keep the "grief" model I wrote about last summer in mind. When a person comes at me like this, I immediately think to myself "remember, they are grieving." That allows me to feel some empathy for them, because I was in the same place two years ago.
That said, this is so much easier than done! And with the language that this person used, I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to stay composed. I personally think you responded really well and wouldn't change a thing. This comment simply amounts to some of my thoughts on the subject, based on fielding some sharp jabs myself. (As an aside, I like to tell school admins "I will be your lightning rod." They tend to appreciate someone stepping in and absorbing all the pent-up energy in this space.)
Anyway, thanks for sharing and sorry for the long comment. Your post struck a nerve, so I wanted to share.
this is really great Mike--I appreciate you joining in and sharing...yeah, it's a tricky space but glad to know there are others grappling thoughtfully with it!
I'm struggling with a similar issue. I've recently gone back to school to do an MFA - and I'm dealing with a lot of fear over the technology and an unwillingness to have a real discussion about it. I find that people have learned how to shut down the conversation with opposition rather than a willingness to have real academic discussions about it. I wanted more. I wanted more nuanced conversation - wanting people to be willing to really look beyond the hype cycle - by hype I mean both for and against - and have a real conversation about where the technology fits. Instead I find that a few people have learned how to object in a way that shuts down the entire conversation.
Thank you for your thoughtful comments on this.
thanks Rebecca--for reading and sharing! Yeah, I understand the shutting down, I think both of us were doing that in the conversation....and I'm thinking about how do we help to keep people from turning off so quickly or retreating back to positions--it's clearly a larger issue than AI (:::looks at around at the world:::)....
I don’t think the persons comment was about GenAI. It was a globalized concern about lack of human connection and a feeling of helplessness in the face of corporate and tech priorities being imposed (or seemingly imposed) on academic values. In other words, stuff way beyond the scope of your talk. I’ve faced similar questions in presentations I’ve given. Once someone characterizes a tech as “evil”, you’re having an entirely different conversation.
agreed about the larger focus of the comments...and in many ways, they're angst about human connection are akin to mine...beyond the scope and also, for some, if they can reconcile the big picture, it makes it really hard to get to the application/smaller scope....
your points give me some good thinking about how I might acknowledge that more from the start--thank you!
I don’t think I would have been any better in the moment. But I believe that where many of these fears stem from, including my own, is the lack of choice. We’re told we have to use these tools or get left behind, and I don’t know that this is the case. I would assert that we have to learn about these tools, how they work, and how they might impact us. Then we can make the decision to use them or not. I also want to give my students the choice to use them or not. We live in a world where we have the illusion of choice (hundreds of options for dinner) but not when it really matters (healthcare, politics, housing, etc.)
I also fear that we may be making the same mistakes that we made with social media. We hyped it for years until it was too late to undo the damage. I have students now who are choosing to not have a social media presence and they are the better for it.
Hi Amber!
The lack/illusion of choice is real and embedded throughout the academic structure (e.g. the LMS, frequency & timing of courses, and more). It’s one more part of that larger cascade of creeping demands.
I think that’s really interesting about students choosing to not have social media. I’d be curious what their context is because I also think about what does it mean to not have a digital presence. If the google search happens between application and interview, what is kind of capital do students have to avoid or not participate in digital spaces to present themselves (curated or otherwise). It reminds me of how supposedly big tech leaders don’t have their kids using the same technology they sell but also, they have aupairs private schools, robust and expensive extracurricular activities and the like that means whatever gaps from being in that space aren’t missed. Anyway—a bit of a tangent :)
Amber - I can relate to your position: Use AI or be left behind. This was a similar position nearly every video editor confronted when the computer-based non-linear video editing systems matured into commercial viability in the mid-/late-1990s. (I worked in TV commercial post-production in NYC).
The "old-school" editors worked with film, and then with videotape players - never touched a computer in their life. Yet, the clientele began to recognize the creative benefits of working with an editor using an AVID Media Composer (instantaneous multiple non-destructive revisions, like word processing) tilted the marketplace toward editors who were versatile on the AVID and Adobe software. It didn't matter if the "old school" editors were actually better editors. That's not what the clients wanted.
In reality, the editors that did not adapt were literally run out of business. Perhaps this is not exactly the same with AI since the AVID was such a specialized tool. Yet, it was clear to me in my emerging career that the better jobs were going to the editors who not only knew how to edit in the purely traditional sense, but who could also do graphics compositing, sound design, text animation, color correction, and music editing (all on one software platform).
We can choose not to participate in the AI hype, but at our own peril.
I think we are going to see more and more of this open hostility to AI in higher education.
I am so sorry you encountered this Lance. I hope you know your recognition and bringing this conversation out into the open will help others of us out here-to navigate as we [all] move forward. AI isn't going away and 'the fear' out there is real. I agree with some of the others, who left comments, we need to keep bringing in the human connection and critical thinking around the use of AI. Then again, ask me in another 6 months after the fall semester is over....I'm going to bet I too will have similar stories to share here. Meanwhile, we must stay strong and keep moving forward-for the sake of our students and our own sanity.
thanks Mary! I appreciate your comments and yes, the people work is the hardest of all...and also, why so many of us are here :)
Accusing someone of being a shill for AI is like accusing someone of being a shill for electron microscopes, CRISPR, or transistors. I understand it, but it reflects a presumption of malevolence. Add one more member to The Pessimists Archive! [https://pessimistsarchive.org/]
If I had the presence of mind being in the same position, I might have said,
"So, what is the alternative? Should we remain passive about AI while others define what it is, what it can do, and who benefits from it? Or do we do invest the time and effort to define it on the terms that matter to us? Maybe it's transformative, or maybe it's just parlor tricks - we have to find out. That is what scholars do: We ask questions, we try things out, we measure the effects and consequences, and report to the community with our best interpretation. I still drive a car and mow the lawn with a combustion engine. I would rather not, but the world is imperfect and I have limited resources. In the meantime, I can make sound decisions that take all stakeholders into consideration. Next question."
Shoutout to you, Lance.
This moment captures something that many of us are quietly carrying: the tension between curiosity and fear, and the difficulty of bridging that gap.
What sounded like a critique of AI may have been more of a cry about disconnection, about jobs, meaning, and feeling unseen in systems that often feel indifferent. That's not just about tech. That's about trust. And many of us feel that in different ways, even if we express it differently.
What's powerful here is that instead of doubling down, you opened up. Your willingness to sit with the discomfort of being misunderstood and to reflect afterward on what you wished you'd said offers a rare template for staying curious instead of reactive. It doesn't surprise me at all -- it's par for the course for you.
Maybe the deeper invitation isn't to defend or dismantle AI, but to learn how to be less alone while making sense of it. And that feels like the kind of learning that might matter most.
I'm curious: for those reading this who've felt caught in similar moments, what helps you stay open to someone's deeper concern when their words feel like an attack? And how might we create more spaces where uncertainty feels safe enough to voice, rather than defaulting to positions we have to defend?
Keep moving through, bredrin Lance. Appreciate you.
Thanks RG....I know some of our conversations and the deep reflections that we get into certainly help me get there!
This was such an honest and necessary reflection. Your vulnerability and willingness to unpack the layers of that moment—both personally and publicly—really models the kind of discourse we should be having around GenAI. Thank you for not shying away from the complexity. 👏🧠
Thank you so much Pat--that's my goal in this and I'm glad to know I'm hitting mark...
Great reflection, Lance. And I'm sorry this happened to you.
I've had this happen a few times to me, though never in as stark of language as this person ("shill.") That's pretty harsh and tells me the person is not thinking critically about the situation or listening closely to what you are saying.
The part that stands out for me is "I came here to learn about something that AI can do that human beings can't..." To me, that's a dead giveaway that this person has the wrong mindset.
If that's what a person is looking for, they are always going to be disappointed -- because if they find it, they will likely feel despair at the idea that it's replacing us in some way.
If they DON'T find it, then they will likely feel anger at the idea that it's taking over the world when it's not that good. It's a lose-lose approach. If I could have a 1:1 with that person, I might say "Don't look for things that it's better than humans at doing, look for ways it can support you and your students to expand thinking. They might exist, they might not, depending on your context, and it will likely depend on your approach."
In my experience doing workshops and talks, the pointed questions and/or criticisms tend to come from one of two camps -- the environment-focused group and the IP-focused group. Their questions are borderline impossible to answer, especially when the speaker's focus (mine) is assessment, critical thinking, curriculum, academic integrity policies, etc. So I always start my answers with "I am not an environmental expert, energy expert, or intellectual property lawyer." Probably an obvious starting point, but it tends to calm the situation.
I also would share that I always try to keep the "grief" model I wrote about last summer in mind. When a person comes at me like this, I immediately think to myself "remember, they are grieving." That allows me to feel some empathy for them, because I was in the same place two years ago.
That said, this is so much easier than done! And with the language that this person used, I can only imagine how difficult it must have been to stay composed. I personally think you responded really well and wouldn't change a thing. This comment simply amounts to some of my thoughts on the subject, based on fielding some sharp jabs myself. (As an aside, I like to tell school admins "I will be your lightning rod." They tend to appreciate someone stepping in and absorbing all the pent-up energy in this space.)
Anyway, thanks for sharing and sorry for the long comment. Your post struck a nerve, so I wanted to share.
this is really great Mike--I appreciate you joining in and sharing...yeah, it's a tricky space but glad to know there are others grappling thoughtfully with it!