You’ve spent several weeks learning how generative AI systems actually work — tokenization, attention, training pipelines, tool use, failure modes. You’re now much more qualified than average to answer the questions people will ask you: Where is AI going? Is it good or bad?
But even experts disagree. Some are impressed by what AI can do (“fans”). Others doubt the claims (“skeptics”). Some are optimistic about societal benefits (“optimists”). Others worry about serious harm (“concerned”). Many thoughtful people hold several of these views at once. To be wise, we need to engage honestly with perspectives we don’t naturally hold.
This Discussion addresses the course objectives Overall-PhilNarrative and Overall-Impact.
We’ll share our findings in class on the last day and compare with the results of a national survey.
Instructions
Step 1: Take the survey. The Moodle forum includes a link to a brief survey about your current views on AI. Fill it out first.
Step 2: Find two articles that represent genuinely different perspectives on the future of AI. Your two articles should pull in different directions — not two versions of the same take. Read with hospitality: you’ll need to articulate the other side’s view convincingly.
For each article:
- Provide a well-formatted link (source should be clear without clicking)
- Label the stance in a keyword or two: e.g.,
[skeptical, optimistic]or[fan, concerned] - Summarize it in a few sentences — written to convince someone who disagrees to actually read it
Step 3: Articulate your own position (~150-250 words), drawing substantively on both articles. Where do you land, and why?
Ground your position in something beyond personal preference. You might draw on:
- What you’ve learned in this course about how these systems actually work (and fail). You’ve seen sycophancy, training data issues, agent failure modes — use that knowledge.
- A philosophical framework — e.g., what does it mean for a system to “understand”? What assumptions are embedded in how we talk about AI? (This connects to Overall-PhilNarrative.)
- A theological framework — e.g., creation (human work as unfolding latent possibilities, the image of God), the fall (technology shaped by broken relationships, idolatry of efficiency or control), redemption and shalom (right relationships, flourishing, justice).
- An ethical framework — distributive justice, professional responsibility, the precautionary principle, care ethics.
- Historical precedent — how have previous technologies (printing press, electricity, the internet) reshaped society, and what can we learn?
The best posts will show that you’ve genuinely wrestled with a view you don’t naturally hold.
Finding Sources
The landscape changes fast, so find your own sources rather than relying on a list. Some places to look:
Where to search:
- Major news outlets’ AI coverage (Calvin has a New York Times site license)
- Substacks and blogs from researchers, journalists, and critics
- Research institutions: AI Now Institute, Berkman Klein Center, Center for Humane Technology
- Aggregators: PapersWithCode, arXiv preprints
- Industry perspectives: company blogs, announcements, economic analyses
Kinds of voices to look for:
- Researchers building these systems and explaining what excites them
- Researchers studying these systems and explaining what worries them
- Economists analyzing labor market effects
- Legal scholars on copyright, liability, regulation
- Philosophers on intelligence, consciousness, agency
- Journalists investigating real-world impacts on specific communities
- Skeptics who think current AI is overhyped (Gary Marcus, AI Snake Oil, Emily Bender, Melanie Mitchell)
- Optimists who think AI will transform society for the better (Dario Amodei, Marc Andreessen)
- People trying to hold both views at once (Arvind Narayanan, Nicholas Carlini)
Replies
Read several classmates’ posts. Reply to at least one (~75-150 words):
- Engage with their position, not just their articles. What would you push back on or add?
- If you hold a similar view, steelman the strongest objection to your shared position.
Rubric
- Two articles provided with well-formatted links and stance labels
- Each article summarized compellingly, accurately, and briefly
- Own position is articulated clearly and grounded in a named framework (not just “I think…”)
- Position draws substantively on both articles (beyond “I agree with Article 1”)
- Reply engages thoughtfully with a classmate’s reasoning
- Writing is clear, concise, and well-cited