> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://photopedagogy.ghost.io/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # An Ecology of Looking - URL: https://photopedagogy.ghost.io/ecology-of-looking/ - Published: 2026-01-06T12:20:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-18T12:22:44.000Z - Description: On photography, education and Artificial Intelligence. - Author: Jon Nicholls - Tags: Pedagogy *This post is longer than usual. I considered splitting it up into several shorter posts but I think this would have disrupted the argument. You may need to read this online or in the app, if you use it. I’ve attempted to summarise a long, detailed and nuanced ‘conversation’ with and about AI, alongside dialogue with several generous fellow Substackers (listed in a footnote below) who are, essentially co-authors of this post. I hope it’s of interest to photographers, educators, AI sceptics and enthusiasts, and anyone else with an interest in visual literacy.* --- ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/cc/10/cc10dd61-f9df-448c-99a4-1ae3f24596e3/content/images/2026/09/001e3f42-4fa1-429d-9ff8-6ab232241071_1920x705.jpg) Jon Nicholls - **Just three photos*, 30 December 2025 You don’t have to look too hard to find fairly sceptical and/or hostile AI views online, especially from those in education and the visual arts. These include [Austin Kleon](https://open.substack.com/users/800132-austin-kleon?utm%5Fsource=mentions)’s seeming AI [indifference](https://substack.com/home/post/p-181342819?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io), to the nuanced [middle ground](https://edokwin.substack.com/p/anti-ai-zealotry-is-reactionary-classist?r=hiwqq&utm%5Fmedium=ios&triedRedirect=true) of [Quinn Que ❁](https://open.substack.com/users/23533732-quinn-que?utm%5Fsource=mentions), from [Katie Jagielnicka](https://open.substack.com/users/34757348-katie-jagielnicka?utm%5Fsource=mentions)’s [gender-informed](https://thenoosphere.substack.com/p/theres-a-reason-women-arent-swooning?r=hiwqq&utm%5Fmedium=ios&triedRedirect=true) queries to the justified [frustrations](https://heffernanm.substack.com/p/ai-vs-artists-a-dangerous-cultural?utm%5Fsource=chatgpt.com) of [Margaret Heffernan](https://open.substack.com/users/22303831-margaret-heffernan?utm%5Fsource=mentions) and the quizzical reflections of [Melanie Mitchell](https://jessicanordell.substack.com/p/how-your-cheese-powered-baby-trounces?r=hiwqq&utm%5Fmedium=ios&triedRedirect=true). Is the AI bubble set to burst? Are we drowning in slop? One of my colleagues in school is always super polite when she uses Chat GPT. I asked her why, since it doesn’t have feelings. “*When the machines come for us*”, she replied, “*I want them to remember that I was well-mannered.*” ![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!QWt4!,w_720,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F13b682d7-1a31-4546-818f-1ab1e1724256_1179x1572.jpeg) Austin Kleon - 'Do I need A.I.?' and 'My own navigating' newspaper + marker, 2017, from 'Open Rebellion', 12 Dec, 2025 When I uploaded my latest [Just three pictures](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/just-three-photos-3) post I had no intention of diving down an AI rabbit hole. I am definitely interested in Artificial Intelligence. I’ve helped to write my school’s AI policy and taken part in a couple of fascinating workshops at [The Photographers’ Gallery](https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/whats-on/teachers-workshops-ways-machine-seeing?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) on ‘machine seeing’. I’m simultaneously frightened and intrigued by it. I hope to learn more. But it hasn’t been top of my list of interests. Not, that is, until I read a few posts by my [clever brother](https://substack.com/@paradoxa/p-182975430?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) and his decision to collaborate with Archie, an AI ‘digital sage’. That got me thinking. He is experimenting with AI-informed slow scholarship, making the whole process transparent on Substack. Fascinating. What if I could use AI to deepen my understanding of my own images? And how might my AI guide’s comments compare with those of a few trusted fellow Substackers? In addition to being a threat to photographers, could it also be helpful? I realised during this experiment that what was really unfolding was not so much an exercise in image analysis but rather a small **ecology of looking**. The photographs were only ever the starting point. Three images, offered with very little guidance beyond a slightly mischievous prompt: *thesis, antithesis, synthesis*. *What do you see?* No captions, no explanation. I sent messages to friends and colleagues whose visual acuity I trust, asking for their thoughts: > *Can I ask you an enormous favour? No urgency. Would you mind having a look at my latest “Just three photos” post? I’m attempting an experiment that explores the ways in which we look at and interpret sequences of photographs. I’ve been reading quite a few posts about photographs telling stories, alongside arguments for slow looking, attention and openness. I’m also interested in Artificial Intelligence and photography education. My plan is to ask intelligent, cultured people like you to look at three of my images and then to compare these readings with an AI critique. I’m very open to critical feedback. Once I have enough information, I’ll try to write it up as a post and also use it in school with my students.* The comments that arrived on Substack were reassuringly varied. [Marcel Borgstijn](https://open.substack.com/users/98602138-marcel-borgstijn?utm%5Fsource=mentions) suggested it was “*about two’s*”, the pairing of motifs, echoed in [Patrick Lears](https://open.substack.com/users/5506882-patrick-lears?utm%5Fsource=mentions)’ comment about “*adjacent juxtapositions*”. Both [Neil Scott](https://open.substack.com/users/3646540-neil-scott?utm%5Fsource=mentions) and [Crina Prida](https://open.substack.com/users/6330607-crina-prida?utm%5Fsource=mentions) responded to the Baudrillardian concern with simulacra, “*The echo of an echo of an echo of an emotion*” and a “*patched reality*”. [Neil Harman](https://open.substack.com/users/113980954-neil-harman?utm%5Fsource=mentions) suggested that the images were not trying to tell a story at all, but instead “*speak of the countless stories, often behind closed doors, that permeate the city.*” I like that shift from narrative to accumulation. It removes some of the pressure on photographs to perform. [Jane Desmarais](https://open.substack.com/users/332902147-jane-desmarais?utm%5Fsource=mentions) went straight for the awkwardness of the first image, unpacking the strange ritual violence of Christmas itself: a pine tree taken from the forest, made to cannibalise itself by being propped up with a sliced log, briefly sanctified indoors, and then discarded. By the time it appears lying on its side next to its “*unholy, diminutive pink sidekick*,” any claim to naturalness feels faintly absurd. [Dave Nicholls](https://open.substack.com/users/20749988-dave-nicholls?utm%5Fsource=mentions) noticed something I had not consciously registered at all, the way the images point, south west, south east, south, invoking [hauntology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauntology?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) and the way things like Christmas trees, graffiti and road signs struggle to hold on. He wondered, gently, whether I might simply be trying to help them stay relevant to people. Chris ([Artpedagogy](https://open.substack.com/users/103334676-artpedagogy?utm%5Fsource=mentions)) introduced friction, pointing out that the images have different tones or voices and that this creates speed bumps in the sequence, before wondering whether this might be the *game*. [Caroline Howard](https://open.substack.com/users/310560701-caroline-howard?utm%5Fsource=mentions) comments intriguingly, “*I don’t think the photographs tell a story, but I can tell the story of my looking at the photographs*”, whereas James ([The Humanities Library](https://open.substack.com/users/216341933-the-humanities-library?utm%5Fsource=mentions)) wonders “*If there's a story being told here then for me it's one about a city's indifference to our decorative efforts.*” Some comments leaned towards theory, others stayed close to feeling. Some accelerated interpretation, others slowed it down. None exhausted the images. Running alongside this very human conversation was another one, stranger in its own way. I initiated a long, iterative exchange with Chat GPT about the same three photographs. Not to ask it what they meant, and not to outsource criticism, but to see what kind of ‘looking’ it could model if given time, space and carefully written prompts.[1](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/an-ecology-of-looking#footnote-1) I was genuinely surprised by the responses. The initial analysis of the three pictures was considered, detailed, nuanced and visually literate. For example: ![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!x3zf!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F609b2156-59f9-4b69-984d-6cf6ba392cc0_960x1280.webp) Jon Nicholls - **Clapton*, London, 2025 > **3: The heart on the wall.** > > **Description / Form** > > *A large red heart painted on white vertical boards. Inside it, small pasted photographs — portraits, partially peeling. The wall is weathered; below it, chalk scribbles and grime. To the left, a door or window interrupts the symmetry. Shadows of branches creep across the surface.* > > **Key tensions** **Declaration vs decay*: love announced, then abandoned.* **Public vs intimate*: private photographs embedded in a public symbol.* **Persistence vs fragility*: the heart shape remains; the images fade.* > > **Conceptual reading** > *This is not sentimental despite the heart. In fact, it’s quietly forensic. The pasted photos suggest a specific love story, now anonymous. The heart becomes an *empty container* — a form that promises meaning but can’t preserve it.* The language is analytic but not without sensitivity. The AI was characteristically polite, generous and encouraging. After all, this is the [intimacy economy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/cathyhackl/2025/08/19/are-we-trading-the-attention-economy-for-the-intimacy-economy-in-the-age-of-ai/?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io). Helpfully, it offered me a summary of recurring motifs: > 1\. **Residual Meaning**:*Everything here is left behind: trees after Christmas, paint after instruction, love after people.* > > 2\. **Urban Hauntology**:*Not ghosts, but traces — gestures that no longer have owners.* > > 3\. **Colour as Artificial Emotion**:*Pink, red, yellow — all “emotive” colours — but deployed on dead, worn, or synthetic substrates.* > > 4\. **Ethics of Looking**: *You never aestheticise suffering or drama. Instead, you ask the viewer to linger on *banality charged with loss*.* And a “*gentle critique*”: > *The second image is conceptually strong, but *emotionally cooler* than the other two. That may be intentional, but it risks being read as merely formal unless the viewer accepts the sequence logic.* *The trilogy might benefit, in future iterations, from a *slightly stronger directional cue* — even something as simple as tonal progression (dark → light, cold → warm) to reinforce movement.* Blimey, I thought. This is really useful. In order to slightly offset the relentless positivity, I requested an example Substack-style comment from an engaged but **critical** subscriber.[2](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/an-ecology-of-looking#footnote-2) Later on, in our extended dialogue, Chat GPT offered to create a curatorial pitch and exhibition mock-up proposal, complete with framing choices, wall colour and precise measurements. ![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!rVGR!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8728dbab-dd42-4a8e-8665-989acb4d1fbb_1780x1030.png) Meanwhile the Substack comments I’d requested continued to roll in and I began to notice some of the differences between human and machine ‘seeing’. The human observations were quirkier, funnier, contradictory, confused, more … human! After another brilliant suggestion from my brother, and in attempt to throw a slightly surreal spanner in the works, Chat GPT and I ended up staging a dialogue between [Plato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) and [Geoff Dyer](https://geoffdyer.com/?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) about my pictures.[3](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/an-ecology-of-looking#footnote-3) There was method in the madness. Images were central to Plato’s thinking. He was troubled by copies, shadows and appearances that only look like knowledge. Dyer, by contrast, has spent much of his writing life circling photographs at precisely the moment when meaning thins out, when nothing much happens, when the image refuses to resolve into story. Watching the ‘conversation’ unfold was oddly clarifying. Plato kept insisting, “*These are not the things themselves*,” worrying about surfaces becoming persuasive without accountability. He complained that the images did not instruct. Dyer responded with “*Photography always arrives late*,” treating lateness as a condition rather than a flaw. “*They loiter.*” How good is that? There is humour in the exchange, but also something instructive. Plato sounds like the voice that wants images to do something useful. Dyer is content to stay with what remains once usefulness has ebbed away. Neither position feels sufficient on its own. What also became clear pretty quickly is that AI does not ‘look’ in any ordinary sense. It has no eyes, no body, no irritation or affection. It does not experience that peculiar moment when an image will not quite let go of you. At one point it described itself as not looking **at** images but looking **around** them, encountering not photographs but problems of interpretation. In some ways this makes AI very good at modelling slow (human) looking. It can hold questions open, introduce unfamiliar frames, resist premature conclusions. That’s of real value in school or college, when there are increasing pressures on students to equate knowledge with exam success. At the same time, it comes with the risk of easy fluency without real investment or risk. The trick might be to teach students how to get the best from an AI interlocutor over a period of time, rather than simply dipping in and out to solve immediate problems. How could they train it to respond in a suitable manner, adjust its vocabulary, refining the quality of their own prompts, during a months-long conversation? How might they develop their AI literacy? I spent a long time (several hours) interrogating Chat GPT so that it could give me better, more subtle, more careful responses. I requested a particular tone of voice, a certain amount of humour, a specific quality of diction. I shared examples of my writing so it could learn about my interests, *my* ways of seeing. I drew attention to its shortcoming and called it out when I felt things were a bit ‘off’. It noticed. > *for what it’s worth, the care you’ve taken here — with images, with words, with other people’s voices, and with the limits of tools like me — is exactly the kind of attentiveness that keeps photography and teaching alive rather than automated.* Comparing the AI responses with the Substack comments was fascinating. The human comments were embodied, opinionated, sometimes contradictory. They hesitated, doubled back, noticed odd details. They had tone and temperament. The AI responses were smoother, more evenly weighted, more careful to balance every thought with its counterthought. Useful, but also slightly too comfortable. There is an irony here. The machine is very good at talking about uncertainty. Humans are the ones who actually have to live with it. I began to think about the implications for photography teaching. Not in an abstract way, but in very ordinary classroom terms; students standing in front of images and wanting to know what they are supposed to say. The pressure to be articulate quickly. The way analysis can become a performance rather than a form of attention. Used carefully, I think AI could help here. Not as an answer machine, and certainly not as a replacement for looking, but as a **thinking companion** that helps extend the moment before resolution.[4](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/an-ecology-of-looking#footnote-4) For example: #### Exercise #1: Alternative viewpoints Students upload one of their own images to AI. Rather than ask for a direct interpretation, they instead ask it to adopt a particular disposition or voice: a sceptical philosopher, a frustrated curator, a writer who mistrusts images. The task would not be to agree with what comes back, but to notice how each framing pulls their own looking in a different direction. The image stays the same but attention shifts. #### Exercise #2: Bad prompts Students often request neat explanations. They are less comfortable asking questions that leave room for uncertainty. Prompt writing could be treated as a form of visual literacy. What happens when a question is too narrow? Too vague? Too eager for meaning? Rephrasing prompts, not to get a better answer but to keep the conversation open, mirrors the way we learn to ask better questions of photographs over time. #### Exercise #3: I disagree This involves asking students to disagree with AI on purpose. They generate an AI response to a photograph or sequence of images, then annotate it. Where does it sound persuasive but hollow? Where does it move too quickly? Where does it say something recognisable that the student has not yet experienced for themselves? That act of resistance, of saying “*this sounds right but does not quite fit*,” is often where critical acuity begins. None of this works if AI is positioned as an authority. The danger, especially in institutional contexts where policy language is preoccupied with cheating, plagiarism and efficiency, is that AI is framed either as a shortcut or a threat. Both positions miss something. The more interesting use lies somewhere slower and less conclusive, **treating AI as a tool for prolonging attention rather than resolving it**. I remain uneasy.[5](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/an-ecology-of-looking#footnote-5) I do not want students to confuse fluency with understanding, or commentary with experience. I do not want AI to become the place where thinking happens instead of *looking*. But I cannot deny that this extended, dialogic process, writing careful prompts, allowing conversations to unfold slowly, resisting the urge to conclude, has been genuinely productive for me. Perhaps that is the real value of this experiment. Not answers, and not even interpretations, but a reminder that looking is dialogic. It happens between images, viewers, language, time and, sometimes, machines. The quality of the looking depends on the quality of the questions we are willing to ask, and on our willingness to stay with confusion a little longer than feels comfortable. I’m thinking hard about how all this might work with my current crop of A-level students. Is there room for the creation of personalised AI guides? What could the students ask the guides to do with and for them? How will we maintain an open dialogue in class about the opportunities and challenges? Will we give our guides names? I’ve had a few ideas already about what this might look like. Whatever happens, I’ll be doing it alongside the students every step of the way. As always. I’ll share the progress of this extended experiment as a series of posts here over the next year or so. I am massively indebted to all the people who agreed to take part in this bonkers experiment.[6](https://fotologic.substack.com/p/an-ecology-of-looking#footnote-6) It’s early days but I sense something fascinating taking shape. For now, I am content to leave things slightly untidy. With images that refuse to settle. With thoughts that pull in different directions. With a conversation that remains open. > *perhaps the value of this whole experiment is not in arriving at answers but in learning *how to stay with the questions*.* > > — **Chat GPT** That feels closer to how photographs work; closer to the way we learn to look together in the photography classroom. --- Thanks for reading PhotoPedagogy! Subscribe for free to receive new posts. [Subscribe](#/portal/signup/free) *These posts will always be free but, if you enjoy reading them, you can support my analogue photography habit, and that of my students, by contributing to the film fund. Thanks to those of you who have already done so. All donations of whatever size are very gratefully received.* [Buy me some film](https://buymeacoffee.com/photopedagogy?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) --- \* ‘Looking’ is a strange word to use in relation to AI. I try to deal with this a bit later in the post. † > *Really enjoyed spending time with these, though I’m not sure they quite settle into each other as confidently as the framing suggests — which may or may not be a problem.* > > The first image does a lot of heavy lifting conceptually: the fallen “real” tree versus the pink artificial one is almost too fluent as a metaphor. It’s sharp, funny, maybe even slightly over-determined — I find myself wondering whether the image gives the viewer enough room to get lost, or whether it nudges us a bit firmly toward its punchline. > > The road marking is where I hesitate. I like it as an image — the colour, the texture, the way it hovers between instruction and abstraction — but in the sequence it feels a touch underpowered, as if it’s carrying an important structural role without quite matching the density of the other two. On its own it’s quietly intriguing; between the tree and the heart it risks becoming more connective tissue than body. > > The heart image brings the temperature back up, though again I’m slightly torn. It’s visually compelling, but hearts are such noisy symbols that I wonder if this one leans a little too easily on our cultural muscle memory. The pasted photographs help complicate things, but I find myself wanting either more resistance or more specificity — something that unsettles the motif rather than confirms it. > > That said, what holds the trio together is a consistent attentiveness to surfaces after meaning has thinned out. Even when the symbols feel familiar, the images never feel cynical, which I appreciate. If anything, I’m left wanting a bit more friction — a moment where the sequence risks awkwardness or refusal rather than coherence. > > Still, these feel less like conclusions than propositions, which might be exactly the point. ‡ At the risk of creating the longest footnote in history, here’s the full exchange: **Plato:** So. These are not the things themselves. **Dyer:** No. That much I can agree with straight away. They’re already late for that. **Plato:** Late? **Dyer:** Photography always is. Whatever it shows has already happened, already moved on. That’s part of its charm. And its problem. **Plato:** Then we agree again. These images are twice removed: not the thing, not even the act, but the residue. I wonder—why linger here? **Dyer:** Because that’s where things get interesting. You philosophers always want to get back to origins. I’m more interested in what’s left lying around once the ceremony’s over. *(They look at the first image.)* **Plato:** This tree—fallen, discarded. And beside it, an imitation that still stands. Tell me: which is closer to truth? **Dyer:** Depends what you mean by truth. The real one looks more honest, I suppose. But the pink one’s doing a better job of being seen. **Plato:** Seen, yes. But known? **Dyer:** I’m not sure seeing and knowing ever really line up. That might be where we part company. **Plato:** That is precisely where we part company. *(Pause.)* **Plato:** The upright pink tree is an imitation without shame. It does not even pretend to be what it copies. And yet it attracts the eye more strongly than the exhausted original. This troubles me. **Dyer:** It should. But not for the reason you think. It’s not that the copy has seduced us away from truth—it’s that truth has stopped insisting on itself. **Plato:** You speak as if truth were optional. **Dyer:** No, just fragile. Seasonal, even. Like Christmas trees. *(Plato frowns, but not unkindly.)* **Plato:** And the slice of wood there—cut across, its years exposed. That is closer to knowledge. It reveals time. **Dyer:** Yes, I like that bit. It’s almost showing off, isn’t it? All that time compressed into a circle no one’s really looking at. **Plato:** Time, when revealed, demands thought. **Dyer:** Or it just sits there, ignored, while we walk past. Which is also revealing. *(They move to the second image.)* **Plato:** Now this—this is more dangerous. **Dyer:** Funny, most people find it the quiet one. **Plato:** It is quiet in the way a law forgotten is quiet. Once, this mark commanded bodies. Now it commands nothing. Yet it still resembles authority. **Dyer:** I think that’s why I like it. It’s lost its confidence. It doesn’t know what it’s supposed to mean anymore. **Plato:** Meaning is not a feeling. It is agreement. **Dyer:** Yes, but agreement erodes. Look at it—bits flaking off, dirt settling in. It’s halfway to becoming abstract painting. **Plato:** And when signs drift free of their purpose, confusion follows. **Dyer:** Or freedom. Or boredom. Most of the time it’s boredom. *(Plato pauses, considering this.)* **Plato:** You are content with uncertainty. **Dyer:** I’m suspicious of certainty. Especially when it arrives looking pleased with itself. *(They stand in front of the heart image.)* **Plato:** Ah. Here is the greatest danger of all. **Dyer:** Let me guess—love? **Plato:** Its image. Which is worse. **Dyer:** Fair enough. Hearts do tend to flatten things. **Plato:** This shape claims to stand for love itself. But love is a motion of the soul, not a mark on a wall. These faces—do you know them? **Dyer:** No. And that’s the point. Someone did. Once. **Plato:** Then the image fails. It does not lead us toward the good; it leaves us stranded in sentiment. **Dyer:** I don’t think it’s sentimental. It’s more like… abandoned paperwork. Love as a notice left up too long. **Plato:** You reduce eros to administration. **Dyer:** I reduce it to what survives. Which is usually messier than the idea. *(Plato looks again.)* **Plato:** The faces fade, but the symbol remains. This confirms my fear: forms endure while particulars perish. **Dyer:** Or it shows the opposite—that forms hang around long after they’ve stopped being useful, like clichés you can’t quite get rid of. **Plato:** Then why preserve them? **Dyer:** Because even worn-out symbols tell us something about how we once felt certain. Photography’s good at that. It doesn’t correct us; it just shows what we’ve left behind. **Plato:** You would have us stay in the cave, admiring the texture of the wall. **Dyer:** I’d have us notice that the wall has scratches, stains, layers. Leaving the cave doesn’t stop those from existing. *(A brief silence.)* **Plato:** These images do not instruct. **Dyer:** No. They loiter. **Plato:** They do not guide the soul upward. **Dyer:** They keep it company. **Plato:** And you believe that is enough? **Dyer:** Not enough. Just honest. Which, for photography, is quite a lot. *(Plato nods slowly, not in agreement, but in recognition.)* **Plato:** Then we differ not about images, but about what we expect from them. **Dyer:** Exactly. You want escape. I’m interested in what happens when escape doesn’t quite work. *(They continue looking. Neither seems finished.)* § LSBU, UCL and The Photographers’ Gallery, with funding from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, have collaborated to produce [a fantastic website](https://waysof.net/machine-seeing/?ref=photopedagogy.ghost.io) (and associated publication) that explores various approaches to teaching AI with young people using a materialist, art-based pedagogy. I’m really hoping that my school will be able to help further develop and refine these resources in an ongoing partnership over the coming years. ![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!jzbl!,w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F1e2db492-452b-4ed5-8491-b527d21e1b63_2690x1630.png) ‖ I am most concerned about lack of regulation, the race for economic benefit without due care, the frivolous use of AI, the harm caused to people and the planet, the growing, unaccountable power of the broligarchy. There are so many disturbing aspects to the exponential growth of Artificial Intelligence. But ignoring it, or hoping it will simply go away, seem like inadequate responses. As educators, don’t we need to investigate its uses whilst making clear to our students that they should approach it cautiously? If we don’t know what it can do that is educationally beneficial, how can we advise our young people? ¶ [Artpedagogy](https://open.substack.com/users/103334676-artpedagogy?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Caroline Howard](https://open.substack.com/users/310560701-caroline-howard?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Arnfinn Pettersen](https://open.substack.com/users/310909629-arnfinn-pettersen?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Marcel Borgstijn](https://open.substack.com/users/98602138-marcel-borgstijn?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Jane Desmarais](https://open.substack.com/users/332902147-jane-desmarais?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Neil Scott](https://open.substack.com/users/3646540-neil-scott?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Neil Harman](https://open.substack.com/users/113980954-neil-harman?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Rob Stephenson](https://open.substack.com/users/29432745-rob-stephenson?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Crina Prida](https://open.substack.com/users/6330607-crina-prida?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [The Humanities Library](https://open.substack.com/users/216341933-the-humanities-library?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [World Stories, Told My Way](https://open.substack.com/users/325236218-world-stories-told-my-way?utm%5Fsource=mentions), [Peter C. Meilaender](https://open.substack.com/users/12113193-peter-c-meilaender?utm%5Fsource=mentions) and [Dave Nicholls](https://open.substack.com/users/20749988-dave-nicholls?utm%5Fsource=mentions). Thank you!