AI rising in higher education: opportunities, risks and limitations
Authors: Davis Adrian John 
Published: June 2024

Purpose

The aim of this paper is twofold: to explore the significance and implications of the rise of AI technology for the field of tertiary education in general and, in particular, to answer the question of whether teachers can be replaced by intelligent AI systems such as androids, what that requires in terms of human capabilities and what that might mean for teaching and learning in higher education.

Design/methodology/approach

Given the interdisciplinary nature of this conceptual paper, a literature review serves as a methodological tool to access data pertaining to the research question posed in the paper.

Findings

This exploratory paper gathers a range of evidence from the philosophy of mind (the mind-body problem), Kahneman’s (2011) System 1 and System 2 models of the mind, Gödel’s (1951) Two Incompleteness Theorems, Polanyi’s (1958, 1966) theory of tacit knowing and Searle’s (1980) Chinese Room thought experiment to the effect that no AI system can ever fully replace a human being because no machine can replicate the human mind and its capacity for intelligence, consciousness and highly developed social skills such as empathy and cooperation.

Practical implications

AI is rising, but there are inherent limits to what machines can achieve when compared to human capabilities. An android can at most attain “weak AI”, that is, it can be smart but lack awareness or empathy. Therefore, an analysis of good teaching at the tertiary level shows that learning, knowledge and understanding go far beyond any quantitative processing that an AI machine does so well, helping us to appreciate the qualitative dimension of education and knowledge acquisition. ChatGPT is robotic, being AI-generated, but human beings thrive on the human-to-human interface – that is, human relationships and meaningful connections – and that is where the true qualitative value of educational attainment will be gauged.

Social implications

This paper has provided evidence that human beings are irreplaceable due to our unique strengths as meaning-makers and relationship-builders, our capacity for morality and empathy, our creativity, our expertise and adaptability and our capacity to build unity and cooperate in building social structures and civilization for the benefit of all. Furthermore, as society is radically automated, the purpose of human life and its reevaluation will also come into question. For instance, as more and more occupations are replaced by ChatGPT services, more and more people will be freed up to do other things with their time, such as caring for relatives, undertaking creative projects, studying further and having children.

Originality/value

The investigation of the scope and limitations of AI is significant for two reasons. First, the question of the nature and functions of a mind becomes critical to the possibility of replication because if the human mind is like a super-sophisticated computer, then the relationship between a brain and mind is similar (if not identical) to the relationship between a computer as machine hardware and its programme or software (Dreyfus, 1979). [ ] If so, it should be theoretically possible to understand its mechanism and reproduce it, and then it is just a matter of time before AI research and development can replicate the human mind and eventually replace a human teacher, especially if an AI machine can teach just as intelligently yet more efficiently and economically. But if AI has inherent limitations that preclude the possibility of ever having a human-like mind and thought processes, then our investigation can at least clarify in what ways AI/AGI – such as ChatGPT – could support teaching and learning at universities.