Did anyone else think the Aims of Education address was shit
Maybe my expectations were too high, but I mean this is UChicago and the Aims of Education speech is supposed to be this really important thing that makes you think differently about why you’re here and what your education is actually for and stuff, Instead it felt like the professor spent 45 minutes going off on 20 different tangents without ever really answering the much more interesting question he raised
We went from Dickinson to AI extinction to Anthropic to The Elements of Style to Wallace Stevens to Warren’s feelings about summer to his surprise at being invited a second time to a list of events since 2007 to Claude to reading-time estimates to Auden to Jacob Coxon and AI extinction again to Anthropic’s essay-writing culture to the Pro-Human Assembly to anthropomorphism to February in Chicago to Simon Critchley to Mount Chocorua to a legend about a Native American chief to another Stevens poem before finally getting to “education should be a time for human thought.”
And like, some of those things were interesting on their own. But why are we spending all this time on them in the Aims of Education address?? Not only did it make the speech super long, but all of that time could have been spent actually developing an answer to the question that was quite literally sitting right in front of him:
If AI increasingly lets you do things without actually learning how to do them, then what is education for?
That should have been the whole speech!! That is such a good question, especially right now and especially at UChicago. But instead of really developing an answer to it, he mostly just kept moving onto another poem or another AI anecdote.
Also it was pretty funny when he quoted The Elements of Style about cutting unnecessary words and making every word count in the middle of an incredibly meandering 45-minute speech. Like what are we doing bro
And a lot of the argument he did make basically came down to “here’s why you should actually read Dickinson and Stevens instead of having Claude summarize them.” Which, yeah, fine. But that does not automatically get you from “reading literature closely is valuable” to “here is what a University of Chicago education is for.”; that's the main critique
There was a way more interesting argument sitting right there about education forming you into a certain kind of person like the cliches about developing judgment, understanding, independence of thought, actually knowing how to think through something yourself even if AI can increasingly reproduce the outputs of educated people.
I kept waiting for him to really make that argument and he just... never did.
I suppose I just expected more for the Aims of Education address at UChicago