No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Social media platforms are failed cities
This paper is motivated by the possibility that large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots such as ChatGPT (Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer) may support cognitive flexibility in AI-augmented learning environments and in doing so, forestall tendencies toward cognitive rigidity, as in, resistance to change, whether conscious or unconscious. A review of the research and practice literature for LLM AI chatbots and for cognitive flexibility and rigidity enables formulation of a conceptual framework for cognitive flexibility in AI-rich learning environments. The main research question explored is whether LLM AI chatbots support cognitive flexibility in contemporary learning environments? And if yes, how? A research design is advanced in this paper that is attentive to the need for a rethinking of methods for the study of people interacting with technologies in contemporary learning environments where AI is increasingly present. This paper provides the design of a research study focusing on Large Language Model (LLM) artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots placing a focus on cognitive flexibility challenges and opportunities in learning environments. This work also provides direction for the development of at least two other papers, one focusing on creativity and innovation and the other focusing on curiosity, interest, and engagement. This paper is significant in terms of the potential to broaden understandings of learning spaces featuring AI capabilities. Contributions of this work pertain to implications associated with enriching and augmenting human learning capabilities in support of cognitive flexibility; and extending the boundaries of AI-assisted human-computer interaction in learning.
The perception of political disagreement is more prevalent on social media than it is in face-to-face communication, and it may be associated with negative affect toward others. This research investigates the relationship between interpersonal evaluations (i.e., perceived similarity, liking, and closeness) and perceived political disagreement in social media versus face-to-face settings. Relying on a representative survey of adult internet users in the United States (N = 489), the study first examines the differences between social media and face-to-face settings in terms of interpersonal evaluations and relates them to parallel differences in perceived disagreement. Results are discussed in light of important, ongoing scholarly conversations about political disagreement, tolerance toward the other side in politics, and the “affective turn” in public communication about politics.
“Artificial intelligence” as we understand it today focuses on machine learning, by which an isolated program evolves and becomes capable of making increasingly “correct” decisions with a predefined objective in mind. Its myth feeds on the ideology of the self-made man, seen as a model of intelligence by the most influential actors in the AI field. While starting to display a creative potential, this kind of intelligence lures our imagination to the gravity centres of established systems of thought, whom it contributes to immobilize. To escape from its pull, we need broader perspectives. This essay proposes one such perspective, by arguing that AI is not a recent invention, but rather a continuation of a long tradition of creating artificial systems that mediate our relationship to the world. In this essay, the story of AI begins with the very appearance of language, and it already materializes in early writing and urban structures. The author redefines AI to encompass all symbolic and functional systems meditating our relation to the non-controllable, to the unnameable, to the ungraspable, in other words: our relation to nature. Linking the tablets of laws of the city of Ur, the meganumbers of the Vedic writings, 18th-century automata, cybernetics and generative algorithms, this essay is a story of the increasing autonomy of thinking devices. What will be the future role of humans in their creations? Does an artificial intelligence that escapes human control rebecome “nature”? With what consequences? Can AI help us in our relations to other beings, to our own subjectivity, and to our natural environment?
Facebook was never just a digital town square. Medium
- D Strauss
- Strauss D.
The body as mediator. Aeon
- D Nixon
- Nixon D.
Pragmatics of Human Communication: A Study of Interactional Patterns, Pathologies and Paradoxes
- P Watzlawick
- J B Bavelas
- D D Watzlawick
- P Bavelas
- Watzlawick P.