Oh dear, because we need to learn logic and creativity, not algorithms
The much-feared conflict between man and machine is, in reality, a logical absurdity. The conflict will simply be between man and man – that is, between those who hold the knowledge and control of the new tools, and those who will be subject to them and influenced by them as a result.
Over the past three years, I have very often heard comments about the relationship between humans and machines, the dangers of AI, the need to monitor algorithmic ‘reasoning’, and the inevitability that this relationship can only be anthropocentric.
Naturally, the public sector – particularly in its political capacity – has expressed a wide range of significant views. After all, the public sector accounts for around 13.5 per cent of our country’s workforce, and must therefore regulate the use of these tools by public servants. Furthermore, the political sphere has both the power and the duty to enact legislation that establishes ethical and behavioural standards, as well as to accelerate or slow down the pace of technological development in Italy.
But there is a broader point to be made regarding education. The much-feared conflict between man and machine is, in reality, a logical absurdity. I’ve had my share of arguments with microwave ovens or televisions, but I’ve never really believed in it… In a technocratic world, the conflict will simply be between man and man – that is, between those who hold the knowledge and control of the new tools, and those who are subject to them and influenced by them. Ethical issues will fundamentally arise from new possibilities, and the choices made in this regard may or may not encourage the development and use of algorithms capable of making important decisions.
Anthropocentrism, so often mentioned at this juncture in history, is not something that will come about simply by invoking it, let alone by restricting access to the technologies of the future or delaying their widespread adoption. Instead, it must be allowed to take root by rethinking the human condition within this new equilibrium, and by involving as many people as possible in becoming active participants in the change.
The technocratic world also helps to spread a kind of technological fatalism that subsumes the classical conception of fate as divine will – what was once linked to destiny or the dictates of the Bible or the Qur’an, and which tomorrow might be attributed to some unknown algorithm or to ChatGPT.

