Today we're going to talk about education, but let me start by making a reflection and sharing with you an unpopular opinion.
The reason I'm going to start this way is because what you're about to read is the result of a train of thought, and my intention is to take you, as much as possible, through the same train of thought that I experienced.
My hope, in doing so, is that by the end of reading this document you'll be able to draw your own conclusions and see clearly what your job is when you have to give a presentation in front of others.
We don't always keep it in mind, but ultimately, whenever we're giving a public presentation, we're educating that audience. It doesn't matter if you're doing a presentation whose main purpose is to educate or if you're doing a presentation of a different nature (such as a commercial pitch, an executive presentation, or any other type of exposition)—whenever you're in front of others, you're educating them.
So, let's ask ourselves: what on earth is education? Is education learning? Is it teaching? Is it reading? Watching a video? Watching a TED Talk?
If I sit for two hours in front of the screen watching YouTube videos about how to improve my personal finances, am I really educating myself? What happens if I spend the same amount of time watching TikToks? Does that count as education?
I believe that any type of content can be educational, as long as there is an intention to educate behind the transmission of that content. I'm going to give you a very practical example that will surely make it perfectly clear what I'm referring to.
You've surely seen some episode of the Shark Tank show, where entrepreneurs from all over the country present themselves in front of a group of investors to pitch their businesses and, ideally, win some investment without losing too much of their venture and, in passing, receive national television advertising.
I find it very interesting to analyze the difference between the show in Mexico and the show in the United States.
If you carefully analyze the clips of the pitches that end up on television and social media, in the case of the show in Mexico a pitch that probably lasted 90 minutes is reduced to a capsule of 10 or 15 minutes in which, yes, they talk about the business, the entrepreneurship idea, the money and the numbers, but more time is dedicated to the entrepreneur's story: how the person feels, what investors subjectively think of the entrepreneur and their decisions, and that kind of thing.
If you watch a clip of the same show, but in the United States, the focus is often different. The same thing happens: a pitch that lasted about 90 minutes is reduced, but in that reduced clip we're going to see another type of content. We're going to see a focus on the business model, the numbers, sales results, and growth potential.
What I'm saying is not black and white, obviously there are exceptions, but I have noticed that pattern and I have a hypothesis about it. It seems to me that the same show in the United States is more educational than in Mexico.
It seems to me that in Mexico it has more of an entertainment purpose than an educational one, while in the United States, sure it's entertainment, but people really do learn a lot watching that program.
Believe it or not, it's been on the air for more than a decade. On the US show, it has happened more than once that small children aged 14, 12, 9, or 6 present their business ideas.
For me it has been interesting and inspiring to hear the testimony of those youngsters, because many of them say they grew up watching Shark Tank and that because of that they learned the basics of business. That's what I think is really worth highlighting and keeping in mind.
So, this is an example in which you can clearly see that the same content can be educational or non-educational, depending on whether or not there is an intention to educate.
Let's now talk about artificial intelligence. What happened with the launch of ChatGPT 3.5 and then ChatGPT-4, as well as the chat interface that completely disrupted the consumption of artificial intelligence services, is that AI became a global consumption phenomenon.
If we studied the amount of time new generations take to incorporate new technologies, we would surely be impressed.
For example: television incorporated faster than radio, the internet faster than television, smartphones faster than personal computers. But I had not seen a technology incorporate as fast as ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence engines did.
Everyone uses artificial intelligence. My mom uses artificial intelligence. My mom's friends use artificial intelligence. And many times, even previous generations know hacks and ways to use this technology that sometimes younger people don't understand.
Just look at how the adoption curve falls—like a slide. Imagine how long it will take to incorporate at scale whatever comes after AI.
So it's obvious for multiple reasons that artificial intelligence has revolutionized many things. I don't want to waste time talking about obvious things, but I do think the development of AI is very important.
But let's stop for a moment, please, because this is where my unpopular opinion comes in. Although I believe that artificial intelligence gives a great advantage to those who know how to use it, I personally don't believe it has come to displace human activity. At least, many human activities I believe will never really be replaceable by AI tools.
I honestly believe we're in an artificial intelligence bubble. All services, companies, and people are trying to incorporate it, when many times it's really not necessary.
I'll give you an example: if I want to publish a job opening to hire someone on LinkedIn, what I do is click the "Post a job" button and automatically a text box appears to help me write the job posting.
Which seems unnecessary to me and interrupts me. If I'm trying to post a job opening, it's because I already know who the person I want to hire is. I surely have a Job Scorecard, a job description, or at least an initial draft.
I'm very likely not going to post a job opening without knowing what I'm looking for. So, for me, this is an example of how companies are trying to bring artificial intelligence in even where it doesn't fit.
One of the ecosystems in which artificial intelligence, although it can be very useful, will definitely not displace (not in the short term, nor in the medium term, and in my personal opinion not in the long term either) the human being, is the education ecosystem.
And I know that many people will not agree with this. Many people have visions of how, in the future, kids instead of learning in traditional classrooms will learn in a kind of hybrid classroom, with carpeted floors, toys all over the place, some connected to the internet, and with an artificial intelligence tutor.
Many people believe that corporate training in the future will be handled by systems that incorporate company data, cross it with market data, and are able to generate educational content and experiences. I know many people believe this will happen. But I, personally, don't think it will be that way.
I think artificial intelligence is a powerful tool for educators, trainers, experts, or speakers. But I don't see, in any foreseeable future, artificial intelligence replacing the experience of teaching. I could be wrong, because I don't have a crystal ball. But I personally don't see it.
And let me share with you a bit more about where this vision comes from. Depending on your age, you might remember some of these milestones in information technology.
When I was a kid a computer arrived at my house with the ability to connect to the internet. I accessed a computer with internet a little before it became popular, because someone in my family worked somewhere that gave them a certain type of access in telecommunications.
Back then, when you connected to the internet you did it through a modem, the connection was 56 kB/s (nothing), and especially, there was almost no content on the internet, especially content in Spanish.
Over time, the internet was populated: first with independent creators, then with companies, and at some point a platform called Wikipedia emerged.
It was a surprise to everyone. No one expected that a platform could exist that consolidated all of human knowledge. Before Wikipedia we had physical encyclopedias on the bookshelves of our homes. Or, if we were more tech-savvy, we had Encarta, which was a CD-ROM that you put in your computer and navigated through a digital encyclopedia. But Wikipedia was something else. It was connected to the internet and had a collaborative model: Web 2.0. That didn't exist before, not even in science fiction.
Maybe you remember, or maybe you don't, but when Wikipedia came out there were many voices: media, opinion leaders, parents, teachers... prophesying that Wikipedia was going to transform education forever. The promise was that from that moment on, no child in the world would be left without education, because with a computer and internet connection, everyone would use their natural curiosity to absorb like sponges all that knowledge. They would become a generation of child geniuses.
More than two decades later, that promise has not been fulfilled. In fact, studies have suggested that in countries like Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States, the IQ went from rising from the early 20th century through the 70s, and that starting in the 80s in some cases IQ declined. Correlation with the emergence of the internet? Hard to say.
If these studies were globally applicable, it would be terrible and depressing. And it's a clear testament to the fact that the existence of technology doesn't mean humans will use it to its maximum potential.
Time passed and YouTube emerged, a freely accessible platform where you could not only watch videos but also upload them. Again the promise: "All information will be available. There will be no more ignorance. Everyone will have access to knowledge." Years passed… and the promise didn't come true either. YouTube is extraordinary, but I remain skeptical that as a society we have become more cultured or intelligent because of YouTube.
If you're not convinced yet, this example will convince you: In 2012 Coursera and edX emerged. Platforms with symbolic costs to access complete educational programs from universities like Harvard, Stanford, or Yale. Literally, with a minimal fraction of the actual cost, you can obtain diplomas, degrees, or postgraduate degrees from the best universities in the world.
And although many people indeed take advantage of this technology, it's not like everyone is walking around the street flaunting their Harvard doctorate, right?
What's the reason?
Why, despite technologies like Wikipedia, YouTube, Coursera, or ChatGPT, have we not managed to elevate ourselves as an intellectual society?
Because, although we all have access to all the information in the world... we don't incorporate it.
There was a cartoon that appeared in the New York Post that compared ChatGPT to a tube of toothpaste, but instead of paste came the knowledge of humanity. Literally, that's what you can do with artificial intelligence.
But there's something else required for education to exist.
Having information available, of course, is important. But making it available was never the bottleneck. When there's a will, information is found. A curious person learns, whether or not they're on YouTube.
So yes, it's important to have access to information. But that's not the most important bottleneck. There's something else required for education to exist: persuasion.
And persuasion is something that artificial intelligence will never be able to do. Because humans only allow ourselves to be persuaded by other human beings. It has never happened that a human has been persuaded of something by an artificial intelligence. AI has beaten us at chess, stock market trading, and weather forecasting… but never has an AI really persuaded anyone of anything.
Human beings have free will. Even if you're lost in a forest and a bear approaches, you can decide: do I run or do I fight? That's free will. And that can only be touched through persuasion. Persuasion is an activity exclusive to humans. Neither animals, nor forces of nature, nor technology can persuade.
But the availability of information is indeed important. It's just not enough. For education to exist, both things must exist: making information available and persuasion.
Bibliography
Teasdale, T. W. & Owen, D. R. (2008). Secular declines in cognitive test scores: A reversal of the Flynn Effect. Intelligence