By Mark Humphries
In the last few months, there has been a growing debate about how historians should respond to AI. And that’s a good thing. I’ve argued that we need to engage with the technology or risk becoming irrelevant. Recent pieces in Active History by Mack Penner and Edward Dunsworth make the case for why we should approach AI with caution and stand-up to resist its use in historical practice and teaching.
One thing on which we can all agree is that teaching critical thinking is essential—probably more so now than ever before—and that higher education generally, and history as a discipline specifically, play essential roles in that regard. I agree with Dunsworth too that it would be wrong to either throw our hands up in surrender to the machines or embrace AI as a panacea. Both will surely lead to the destruction of history and the university as we know them. I would argue, though, that the question of how to respond to AI—especially in the classroom—remains very much unresolved.
Dunsworth argues for resistance, reaffirming the intrinsic value of deliberative human thought and mindful writing by embracing the traditional, tactile, and analog. While I agree that critical thinking and engagement are essential, I don’t believe rejecting AI is a viable way to uphold those values without ultimately distorting them into something unrecognizable. Looking at issues from a variety of perspectives, so long as they are grounded in evidence is, after all, the essence of critical thinking. If we deny that generative AI can be useful at least in some circumstances—or worse, pretend it doesn’t exist and that our students don’t have to contend with it—we simply aren’t being true to the evidence.
Continue reading
