Latest news with #InfiniteEducation
Forbes
15-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Apple Wants To Get Into Your Head, Literally.
Apple Wants To Get Into Your Head, Literally. In the book Infinite Education I wrote about the advancing front of brain-computer interfaces (BCIs). When exploring AI powered implants that detect and record electrical signals from the brain, it's not difficult to imagine a world approaching where thought could replace touch. Apple has now entered the ring. Apple's move into BCIs through a partnership with Synchron is more than a headline. It's a glimpse into the future of how we interact with machines. The company that made the smartphone mainstream is now validating the idea that the brain itself can drive our devices. The significance lies in scale, signal and simplicity. When Apple shifts, the world takes notice. Their support for Synchron's BCI technology could move the entire conversation forward on the use of such devices. Synchron's Stentrode device is the first BCI implant that doesn't require open-brain surgery. That fact alone will bring relief to a lot of people. The device is inserted via the jugular vein and interfaces with the motor cortex. It reads neural activity and converts it into control signals. It's already helping people with paralysis send texts, browse the web and interact with software using thought alone. While Elon Musk's Neuralink has demonstrated amazing results, it still requires invasive open-brain surgery, which presents significant barriers to widespread adoption. What makes this moment historic is Apple's introduction of a new software protocol called BCI HID (Human Interface Device). This is Apple's way of telling developers and device makers: brain input is no longer fringe. It's officially part of the Apple ecosystem. The same ecosystem that powers iPhones, iPads and the new Vision Pro headset. Is brain activity now joining voice, touch and gesture as a recognized input method for devices? This would open the door to software that responds to thought, hardware that adapts to neural patterns and user experiences that center around intent rather than action. It could make accessibility smarter. Could it even make device interaction more human? Still, context matters. Apple has been slow to enter the AI race. While companies like OpenAI and Google rapidly released generative AI tools, Apple has remained measured, if not hesitant. Their public AI strategy has lacked the urgency or visibility of competitors. The Vision Pro headset, a major foray into spatial computing, has received mixed reviews. Critics argue it lacks compelling use cases. Sales have not met expectations. Some see it as a flop. Others view it as a necessary step toward a larger ecosystem. For users with ALS, spinal cord injuries or locked-in syndrome, the implications are life-changing. A person who cannot move or speak might now be able to control a digital environment through seamless native tools built by Apple. This matters. It's not a technology searching for a use case; it's a technology that could potentially change many lives. But it goes deeper. Apple is known for shaping culture. The iPhone didn't just succeed because it was smart. It succeeded because it redefined what phones could be. The Apple Watch didn't just track steps. It made wearable tech feel essential. If they use the same playbook, then Apple could be signalling to the world that brain-based computing is not just possible, but desirable. This normalization is the most powerful part. It takes BCIs out of the niche and into the mainstream. Not just for medical use, but for everyone. This partnership could lead to apps where students think their notes into existence, professionals control presentations with their minds or artists draw with neural commands. Creativity without friction? Expression without constraint? There are obviously some serious ethical questions. As BCIs evolve, we will need rigorous safeguards. Neural data is the most intimate form of information we can generate. It must never be exploited or used without transparent consent. Apple's history of prioritizing user privacy gives some reassurance, but it will be critical to watch how this evolves. Regulators, ethicists and technologists must collaborate to write new rules for a new reality. In education, the implications are profound. Students with learning differences could gain new forms of input. Those who struggle with motor control could gain a direct link to learning platforms. Teachers might one day read engagement not just by facial expression but by neural signals. The classroom itself could adapt to cognitive states, adjusting pace and content in real time. For entrepreneurial parents and innovative educators, this may be a frontier worth exploring. The tools our children will use in ten years may not be bound by keyboards or touchscreens. Is the new frontier of education to build learning systems that are ready for this level of interface? Systems that are ethical, inclusive and meaningful. In Infinite Education, I warned that education systems stuck in the finite game would miss the transformation. This could be one of those moments. The shift around us is happening. The arrival of Apple into this space is a signal that the age of the interface could be ending. The age of integration has begun. Our tools are becoming extensions of our minds. Not just in metaphor, but in fact. If Apple pulls this off, it will not be a small step; it will be a paradigm shift. One that will demand new thinking. The courage to rethink what it means to connect. What it means to learn. What it means to be human in a world where your thoughts can shape reality.
Forbes
20-04-2025
- Forbes
The Secret To AI In Education: We Should All Be Frustrated Pragmatists
The Secret To AI In Education: Why We Should Be Frustrated Pragmatists When it comes to AI in education, I've noticed two distinct camps beginning to form. The first camp consists of teachers, school leaders and consultants who are focused on how AI can support the day-to-day work of educators. These are the pragmatists. The ones using AI to reduce teacher workload, automate repetitive tasks, streamline assessment and unlock extra time in increasingly stretched schedules. They see AI as a means to enhance the current system. In a global context of teacher shortages, low morale and burnout, their focus practical and, I would argue, noble. The second camp sees things differently. For them, AI should not be a tool to help us do what we've always done, only faster or more efficiently. It's a transformative force. This group believes that the real potential of AI lies in its power to reimagine education. They are frustrated that education hasn't already changed and want AI to be the spark that ignites the revolution. They want to move beyond incremental improvements and into bold redesigns: new models of learning, new systems of assessment and new structures of schooling altogether. They are asking the big questions about relevance, purpose and the future of education. Over the past couple of years, I've noticed a subtle but growing tension between these two perspectives. The second camp sometimes look down on the first, as if using AI to help with lesson planning or grading is somehow pedestrian, even counterproductive to real innovation. As if anything short of systemic transformation isn't worth talking about. This, I believe, is a mistake. Because the truth is, both perspectives are necessary. The answer isn't either/or. It's both/and. I'm a frustrated pragmatist. Back in 2022, I wrote a post referencing the three-box solution to innovation, a model developed by Professor Vijay Govindarajan from Dartmouth College's Tuck School of Business. I adapted it and applied it to education. I then expanded on it in my book The AI Classroom, and even more deeply in my latest book, Infinite Education. This framework offers one of the most helpful lenses through which to approach AI in education. A perspective that honours both present-day practicality and long-term reinvention. At its core, the model divides innovation into two key categories: linear and non-linear. Linear innovation is about optimizing and improving what already exists. It's evolutionary, not revolutionary. It enhances the current system. It can make schools run more efficiently, helping teachers manage workloads and freeing up time to focus on what matters most. AI is proving to be incredibly effective in this space. It can support lesson planning, generate differentiated materials, summarise assessment data, automate feedback and assist with communication and reporting. These are not small upgrades. In many schools, they're game-changers. As I work with educators around the world, I see firsthand the excitement, relief and even joy that comes from discovering AI tools that make their lives easier. These teachers aren't looking to overhaul the system, they're just trying to do their jobs well and get a bit of breathing room in the process. And when AI helps them achieve that, it's not 'false' innovation. It's real and meaningful progress. Who are we to say that this isn't valid? Who are we to dismiss these tools as unimportant or unimaginative? That kind of thinking is patronising and it's inaccurate. Linear innovation may be the first step, but it's a vital one. Especially in a profession that's been pushed to its limits, finding new ways to support educators in their existing work is not a distraction from innovation. It's the foundation of it. But we also can't afford to stop there. Non-linear innovation doesn't seek to make the current system more efficient, but to question it. It asks: What if the way we've always done things no longer makes sense? What if there's a better model altogether? This kind of thinking becomes crucial when new technologies arrive that don't just make old systems better, but have the potential to make them obsolete. AI is one of those technologies. For decades, education has been shielded from true disruption. Schools have existed in protected ecosystems, relatively untouched by market forces or external competition. But with AI, that is changing. For the first time, we are seeing the emergence of powerful learning alternatives. ChatGPT apps that teach maths, AI-powered schools and fully online AI tutors. This is the real disruptive force of AI. It's not just that it automates existing processes. It introduces competition on a level never seen before. When students can access personalised, high-quality learning from anywhere, anytime and at little to no cost, schools must begin to ask: As I recently said on the Joining the Dots podcast, AI isn't the ultimate goal in education; it's the lever for driving much-needed systemic reform. It's not the destination. It's the momentum builder. The accelerator. The great nudge we've needed to rethink education's purpose, design and delivery. This is why I wrote Infinite Education. Not just to explore AI's classroom applications, but to provide a playbook for non-linear innovation. A guide for schools looking to evolve before they're forced to. This dual innovation journey of linear and non-linear requires a new kind of leadership. Good leadership balances the linear and the non-linear. It manages the present while challenging its shelf life. It supports existing systems while creating new ones. It holds space for both security and disruption. In education, the time has come for both managerial and heretical leaders. Managerial leaders keep the system functioning. They maintain stability, operations, safety and accountability. Their work is essential. But we also need heretical leaders. The ones who dare to imagine something different. The ones who ask uncomfortable questions. The ones who aren't afraid to disrupt their own assumptions. These leaders often face resistance, but they are the ones who move the system forward. True educational innovation in the age of AI requires both types of leadership. Neither alone is enough. So rather than choosing sides. Rather than dividing ourselves into camps, we must choose integration. Let's build a culture that values both kinds of innovation: Tools that help us survive today, and visions that help us invent tomorrow. Let's honour the teachers using AI to reclaim time and energy and support those dreaming of systems not yet built. Let's stop drawing lines and start building bridges between the now and the next, the practical and the possible, the performance engine and the innovation lab. Because if we can do that, we don't just adapt to AI. We lead with it. That's the kind of education system the future needs.
