Would you leave your infant in the care of a robot, assuming that the robot could perform every practical caregiving task that you could? I would venture that most of my readers would say no, although for varying reasons. In this post, I will outline why AI will not completely replace humans in education.
1. Biological responses
During human-to-human interaction, we are not merely conveying words. Touch and social contact can also trigger biological and hormonal responses. When a mother holds her infant, for example, skin-to-skin contact can stimulate oxytocin-related processes. Oxytocin is associated with bonding and attachment, while physical contact can help regulate an infant’s stress response.[1] Infants deprived of normal touch and sensory stimulation may experience developmental delays and difficulties with emotional and physiological regulation.[2]
You might say, “That applies to infants, but what about teenagers and adults?” Research suggests that loneliness and social isolation are associated with changes in gene expression and epigenetic markers.[3] These changes may be connected to accelerated biological ageing, increased inflammation, and altered immune function. By replacing human interaction with machine interaction, we may be giving up something valuable. There is no free lunch: the more time devoted to interacting with machines, the less time may remain for interacting with other humans.
2. The expression of non-PC ideas
Your friendly neighbourhood AI tutor was developed by a company. That company does not want to be sued or become involved in activities that could tarnish its reputation. Consequently, the AI will be aligned, as the developers call it, with certain institutional values, limiting what it can say or discuss.
Learning could therefore be mediated by what a group of executives considers appropriate. What is said in a traditional classroom is also mediated, but students are not necessarily limited to the perspective of a single teacher.
Teachers also have skin in the game. On one side, they face the possibility of losing their jobs for expressing non-PC ideas. On the other, they may feel a responsibility to express truthful ideas that could make their students more capable and resilient in life.
Consider Richard Feynman’s idea of being “actively irresponsible.” Feynman explained that, as people become more successful, increasing demands are placed on their time. They are asked to sit on committees, accept administrative responsibilities, give interviews, and attend social events. These activities may appear to contribute to further success, but they can also prevent people from doing their most meaningful work. Can you imagine an AI recommending that you become actively irresponsible?
3. Building trust
If classroom education were strictly about acquiring subject knowledge, you could simply get a library card or, in modern times, watch YouTube videos. Classroom education, however, also includes mechanisms for establishing trust.
First, your grades provide a measure of how strongly a lecturer believes that you understand the material. Then there are recommendation letters, in which a teacher vouches, in their own words, for a student’s character and capabilities.
Teachers may also recommend students directly to employers and professional peers. Unlike a formal recommendation letter, this support may not be prompted by a request. It may arise because teachers genuinely want the best for their students. Students may similarly promote and recommend their classmates.
4. Status
We are already beginning to see a status distinction emerge. From the use of the term “AI slop” to the growing demand for proof that genuine care and effort went into something, AI-generated work is increasingly associated with lower effort and, in some contexts, lower status.
Just as people may choose between factory-manufactured furniture and handcrafted furniture, education could develop into a two-tier system. One tier would provide inexpensive and readily available AI tutoring. The other would provide expensive human instruction that signals class, care, and sophistication.
AI will not eliminate status competition. Although it may satisfy many basic needs, scarcity will continue to exist. For example, several people may be romantically interested in the same person. That person’s attention is scarce, and who ultimately attracts that person may be influenced partly by status.
AI has its place. Just as I would not place handcrafted furniture on a beach, there are circumstances in which traditional classroom education is unsuitable or impractical. Suppose, for instance, that I want to learn string theory. How many people in Antigua, where I am from, are qualified to teach it? This would be an ideal use of AI. My conclusion, however, is that AI will not fully replace classroom teachers. As outlined above, too much would be lost in the process.
[1] Scatliffe, N., Casavant, S., Vittner, D., and Cong, X. “Oxytocin and Early Parent-Infant Interactions: A Systematic Review.” International Journal of Nursing Sciences, 2019.
[2] Ardiel, E. L., and Rankin, C. H. “The Importance of Touch in Development.” Paediatrics & Child Health, 2010.
[3] Lynch, M., et al. “Associations Between Longitudinal Loneliness, DNA Methylation Age Acceleration, and Cognitive Functioning.” 2023.