There is interesting writing about what we need to teach students, at different levels of education, about AI. For example;
For the young:
Helping kids understand what content is made by AI, what it can do, and where it might go wrong is really important today. Parents and teachers are here to help you use these tools in smart, safe, and kind ways.
For older kids:
Learning to recognize content created by AI, understanding its potential as well as its limits, and using it in a thoughtful and ethical way — these are key challenges that young people and their families must now face together.
For young adults:
Supporting young people in identifying AI-generated content, understanding both its potential and its limitations, and guiding them toward responsible and ethical use — these are the new challenges parents and educators are now navigating.
A key question parents and educators should think through is what skills AREN'T needed, or aren't needed in the same way.
Instead of teaching students only how "to not rely" or how "to rely ethically" we should spend a little more time thinking through the skills that we teach. I think that the fact that a tool exists that can quickly and easily perform a task, to a better or similar quality is at the very least a signal for skills that we may need to careflly rationalize continuing to teach in the same exact way.
Let's take an example from early childhood: So, my handwriting is completely illegible at this point. I like to say that my hand evolved away from holding a pen in a manner geared towards writing, which is, of course, a positive spin on the F I would have surely gotten in a penmanship class I might have taken.
Regardless of whether my compliment to my hand stands, I do know that its state is an adaptation to an environment where I am never required to functionally hold a pen. I don't think that this experience is unique to me. I think it's unquestionable that it's a fact of life by now.
And yet, schools still very much teach handwriting. Why is that? It's interesting to me that we are sticking to this status quo so many years after typing has completely replaced handwriting in (almost?) every context outside of school. Actually, it's more than interesting to me. I find it mind-boggling. I guess it is possible that many really believe the studies that retention is better with handwriting. But I can't believe that there aren't ways to bridge that, even if it's true. Typing is so vastly more efficient. I think it's more likely that all of these explanations are there because we need to justify a real fear that we have to make any changes - as reasonable as they may be - to our children's learning. We worry we might affect them in a way that we don't understand and so we keep things as they are. I think that's not a good excuse to avoid investing in what can potentially improve educational outcomes.
I intend to use all of this as a parable for legal education, but first I need to take several more necessary steps.