Teaching AI isn't enough—we need to teach wisdom, too
Artificial intelligence is shaking the intellectual, emotional, and economic foundations of the world. A glance at mainstream or social media confirms that the world ahead will look nothing like the one we're leaving behind.
Technological disruption is nothing new. From bronze smelting in Benin and steel forging in Japan to Themistocles's naval buildup in ancient Greece, history shows that transformative technologies spark societal shifts and national urgency.
Today's urgency is AI. The White House's recent executive order (EO) on AI education echoes past anxieties—this time, about China's rapid advancement.
You may have missed this EO amid the recent flood of them. But it's a pivotal moment. Though well-intentioned, the EO lacks the depth needed for a truly informed AI educational policy.
The EO defines its mission as providing 'opportunities to cultivate the skills and understanding necessary to use and create the next generation of AI technology.' It outlines three imperatives:
'Expose our students to AI at an early age.'
Train teachers to 'effectively incorporate AI into their teaching methods.'
Promote AI literacy to 'develop an AI-ready workforce.'
These steps are necessary. AI is a profound shift, one that exposes long-standing deficiencies in our educational system—particularly our neglect of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).
Still, the EO falls short in three key areas. Speaking as president and CEO of the Center of Science and Industry, a board member of the National Academies, and a lifelong STEM advocate, I say this: You cannot teach AI without also teaching critical thinking, ethics, and wisdom.
Our national conversation must expand beyond technical training. As AI (and eventually artificial general intelligence) integrates into every part of life, we face a stark choice: Do we become passive consumers of knowledge, or do we intentionally cultivate wisdom?
Technical proficiency alone turns us into carbon versions of AI. Instead, we need a cultural shift—one that champions critical thinking, ethical reasoning, and curiosity in classrooms, workplaces, and homes.
The goal isn't just to understand AI, but to navigate the world it creates. Techno-optimism must be balanced with rigorous intellectual and moral interrogation—or the 'doomers' may be right.
Though the EO doesn't address the human-AI relationship, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt—it's not a full policy, but a starting point. I hope future policy goes further, confronting AI's risks and outlining how education and society should respond—both philosophically and practically.
For what it's worth, my ideal AI curriculum would include more than practical skills. It would explore:
Martin Heidegger's insights on how technology shapes experience
Nick Bostrom's ' paper clip ' thought experiment
Shoshana Zuboff's critique of surveillance capitalism
Soon, AI won't need to be taught—it will be omnipresent. In the 1990s, we trained students to use a mouse and browse the web. But intuitive design soon made that obsolete. The same is happening with AI—only faster.
Rather than focus on today's tools, AI education should teach how to understand technology's evolution.
Computer scientist Alan Kay once said, 'Technology is anything that was invented after you were born.' Maintaining global leadership requires more than technical prowess—it demands cultural vision.
After Sputnik, America feared falling behind in the space race. In the 1990s, it was Japan. Now, it's China. But the true question is: Which nation will use AI to become the better society?
French philosopher and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville once said, 'America is great because it is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.' That quote echoes as I reflect on the EO and our future.
To lead in AI, we must prioritize wisdom over raw intelligence. That greatness won't come from executive orders—but from the strength of our social order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
31 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Wikipedia Tries to Calm Fury Over New AI-Generated Summaries Proposal
The denizens of the open web don't want anything to do with AI. The Wikimedia Foundation, the organization behind Wikipedia, made the unfortunate decision to announce the trial of a new AI-fueled article generator this week. The backlash from the site's editors was so swift and so vengeful that the organization quickly walked back its idea, announcing a temporary 'pause' of the new feature. A spokesperson on behalf of the Foundation—which is largely separate from the decentralized community of editors that populate the site with articles—explained last week that, in an effort to make wikis 'more accessible to readers globally through different projects around content discovery,' the organization planned to trial 'machine-generated, but editor moderated, simple summaries for readers.' Like many other organizations that have been plagued by new automated features, Wikipedia's rank and file were quick to anger over the experimental new tool. The responses, which are posted to the open web, are truly something to behold. 'What the hell? No, absolutely not,' said one editor. 'Not in any form or shape. Not on any device. Not on any version. I don't even know where to begin with everything that is wrong with this mindless PR hype stunt.' 'This will destroy whatever reputation for accuracy we currently have,' another editor said. 'People aren't going to read past the AI fluff to see what we really meant.' Yet another editor was even more vehement: 'Keep AI out of Wikipedia. That is all. WMF staffers looking to pad their resumes with AI-related projects need to be looking for new employers.' 'A truly ghastly idea,' said another. 'Since all WMF proposals steamroller on despite what the actual community says, I hope I will at least see the survey and that—unlike some WMF surveys—it includes one or more options to answer 'NO'.' 'Are y'all (by that, I mean WMF) trying to kill Wikipedia? Because this is a good step in that way,' another editor said. 'We're trying to keep AI out of Wikipedia, not have the powers that be force it on us and tell us we like it.' The forum is littered with countless other negative responses from editors who expressed a categorical rejection of the tool. Not long afterward, the organization paused the feature, 404 Media reported. 'The Wikimedia Foundation has been exploring ways to make Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects more accessible to readers globally,' a Wikimedia Foundation spokesperson told 404 Media. 'This two-week, opt-in experiment was focused on making complex Wikipedia articles more accessible to people with different reading levels. For the purposes of this experiment, the summaries were generated by an open-weight Aya model by Cohere. It was meant to gauge interest in a feature like this, and to help us think about the right kind of community moderation systems to ensure humans remain central to deciding what information is shown on Wikipedia.'
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Chicago mayor says Trump's America looks like Confederacy won, suggests ICE are 'terrorists'
All times eastern FOX News Radio Live Channel Coverage WATCH LIVE: Trump attends bill signing ceremony at the White House
Forbes
32 minutes ago
- Forbes
L.A. Immigration Crackdown Sparks Concerns About Possible Martial Law
TOPSHOT - Demonstrators holding signs and flags face California National Guard members standing ... More guard outside the Federal Building as they protest in response to federal immigration operations in Los Angeles, on June 9, 2025. US President Donald Trump on June 9 ordered active-duty Marines into Los Angeles, vowing those protesting immigration arrests would be "hit harder" than ever. Protests in Los Angeles, home to a large Latino population, broke out on June 6, triggered by immigration raids that resulted in dozens of arrests of what authorities say are illegal migrants and gang members. (Photo by Apu GOMES / AFP) (Photo by APU GOMES/AFP via Getty Images) In recent weeks, the Los Angeles immigration crackdown has become the epicentre of a dangerous national experiment—one in which immigration enforcement is serving as the pretext for something far more ominous: a steady descent into possible martial law. The deployment of U.S. military forces into California without the governor's consent, the violent sweep of immigration raids, and the weaponization of emergency powers all signal that the constitutional order is under siege. President Donald Trump's decision to send 4,000 National Guard troops and Marines into California was met with outrage from state leaders and legal experts alike. California Governor Gavin Newsom has called the action 'an illegal, immoral, and unconstitutional act,' and the state has filed suit against the federal government, citing violations of the U.S. Federal Code, which prohibit federalizing state militias except in cases of invasion, rebellion, or when a state cannot enforce its own laws. None of those conditions apply in this case. Yet the justification offered by the administration—that Los Angeles was on the brink of collapse due to immigrant protests—is as false and inflammatory as was demonstrated on a recent episode of Jimmy Kimmel, which showed footage of quiet Los Angeles streets. Following a series of ICE raids that detained over 100 people, protests erupted across the city. While the Los Angeles Police Department stated that the demonstrations were largely peaceful, federal officials framed them as acts of rebellion. In televised comments, President Trump, without evidence, declared that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without military intervention. However, some legal scholars point out that such claims are disturbingly reminiscent of how autocrats have historically manufactured crises to seize power. For instance, in comments made recently by Yale historian Timothy Snyder, he warned, 'Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns claim to be against the system, the system is under threat.' These warning signs are increasing. Earlier this year, President Trump re-declared a national emergency at the southern border, significantly intensifying deportation efforts, particularly in sanctuary jurisdictions. His Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, asserts that these efforts are crucial to national security. However, critics contend that the raids are politically motivated, intended to incite chaos and test the boundaries of presidential authority. This is not mere conjecture. There have been calls to arrest Governor Newsom for defying the troop deployment—an idea that would equate to criminalizing political opposition. The implications are chilling. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans are racing to pass what Trump has dubbed his 'big, beautiful bill,' a sprawling legislative package that, among other things, includes over $46 billion for the border wall and ICE funding. The administration is leveraging the unrest in Los Angeles to push hesitant GOP senators to fall in line. The proposed bill also imposes a $1,000 asylum application fee—an unprecedented barrier to legal refuge—and earmarks billions more for new Border Patrol and customs agents. These aren't merely policy choices; they are tools of exclusion and intimidation. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), a leading voice for the legislation, is actively urging his colleagues to use the Los Angeles protests as proof of why ICE and the border crackdown require even more support. Beyond Capitol Hill, the cultural symbolism of this shift is equally revealing. Trump has announced a massive military parade in Washington, D.C., timed to coincide with the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary—and his own birthday. With tanks, howitzers, and cruise missile launchers on display, the spectacle is designed to evoke strength. But it also mirrors the authoritarian aesthetics of regimes like Russia and North Korea. The question is, where is this all heading? During his first term, Trump was dissuaded from invoking the Insurrection Act during the George Floyd protests only after senior military officials objected. This time, with loyalists appointed to key positions, those checks seem to be absent. Historically, there exists a dangerous precedent for all this. In 1933, Adolf Hitler used the Reichstag Fire to suspend civil liberties and consolidate power. Legal analysts are increasingly drawing comparisons between that moment and today's ongoing use of emergency powers in the name of immigration control. 'If you saw all this in any other country — soldiers sent to crush dissent, union leaders arrested, opposition politicians threatened — it would be clear that autocracy had arrived,' said constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe. Even tech magnates are playing a role. Elon Musk, who now owns X (formerly Twitter), has eliminated most content moderation, amplifying polarizing rhetoric and misinformation. His platform has become a megaphone for conspiracy theories that portray immigrants as invaders and critics as traitors. Beneath all these disturbing developments in the crackdown on immigrants lies a core question: Is the United States still a democracy governed by civilian law, or is it becoming a militarized state ruled by executive whim? The courts may still provide a line of defense. California's lawsuit regarding the unauthorized deployment of federal troops will test the judiciary's willingness to uphold the Constitution. However, history teaches us that legal battles alone cannot protect democracy when institutions are co-opted or eroded. What is unfolding is more than a dispute over immigration policy; it is a stress test of America's democratic fabric. The use of immigration raids to justify military actions, the demonization of peaceful protests, and the consolidation of emergency powers—these are not isolated events. They form a pattern. While Americans seem divided on the issue of military use in the Los Angeles immigration crackdown, with half in favour and the other half, particularly Californians, opposed, June 14th, 2025, the 'No Kings National Day of Action,' promises to be a pivotal day for America as immigration protests, which have spread to other cities, will likely reach their peak on that day. While this unfolds, Trump will head to Canada to attend the G-7 meeting while keeping a watchful eye on events back home. Meanwhile, the fate of the Republic may hinge not on whether Trump builds a wall, but on whether Americans permit him to dismantle the walls of constitutional restraint in the name of constructing it.
