Every year, I look forward to the Learning Guild’s DevLearn conference in Las Vegas. It’s a terrific opportunity to catch up with friends and colleagues, hear some great speakers, and check out the latest and greatest in L&D. A few months before the conference, they have a competition to design the logo for the conference tee shirt. There are some very talented artists in the DevLearn community, and I am by no means one of them. So, I never considered entering until this year. What changed? Did I take dozens of art classes and practice tirelessly? No. Just like everyone else, I started using generative AI tools on a daily basis. And so, when DevLearn announced the tee shirt contest this year, I found a golden opportunity to do two things I love doing at the same time: winning a contest and entertaining myself.

​Here are my submissions:

The aesthetic is self-explanatory. Regardless, a good artist leaves their work open to interpretation.

Now, to be clear, I did not actually think I was going to win this contest, nor did I mean to. I wanted it to be very clear that I had used AI to create these images, so I left the typos and miscellaneous dots in. Besides, I think they provide an element of messiness that symbolizes the questionable decisions some of us make in Las Vegas. I was hoping to prove a point, and the Guild's leadership did exactly what I thought they would: I was told that my submissions were disqualified because I used AI to create them.

This perspective is a little ironic given that according to the DevLearn Concierge GPT made with OpenAI's ChatGPT, 27 sessions at the conference are focused on applications of AI in L&D. Furthermore, there is an entire day-long AI and Learning Symposium on Tuesday, where you can learn how to use AI tools in instructional design. Despite the conference's clear - and appropriate - focus on using AI to get your work done, when it came down to accepting work created by AI, they had a contradictory position.

There are myriad opinions on how, when, and where using AI tools (like Dall-E, in this case) to create things is acceptable. This time last year, I told people that the government, courts, and regulatory bodies had a responsibility to make rules and laws about this, and that hopefully we would get some clarity on the issue soon. Well, it's been a year, and we are no closer to resolving this debate. In the meantime, we are going to have to operate on a case-by-case basis, follow our guts, and do what we think is best. Here are a few things the Guild (or anyone having a contest) could do in the future:
​

1. Set clear ground rules. If you don't want work done using any AI tools, you need to say so up front. However, just saying "no AI" isn't enough - you have to specify what kinds of tools you mean. There's a big difference between asking ChatGPT to write your term paper for you and using Word's grammar checker, but both are AI tools. There's also a difference between using ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas for a paper that the author then writes and having ChatGPT write the whole thing. You can draw the line wherever you want, but your intent should be clear.
2. Request proof of creation. You can ask creators to submit documentation showing their work in progress. These could include screenshots, sketches, or other artifacts that show the creator's process.
3. Learn to identify markers of AI. Tools exist to detect AI-generated text and images, however, they are not always accurate (see my last blog post about those here). Familiarizing yourself with the hallmarks of AI-generated work can help, too. Often, pictures made by AI have odd details, overly complex backgrounds, inconsistent lighting or shadows, and at least 15 fingers per person. In my submissions, I left the typos so it would be obvious. But how do they know that other submissions weren't AI-generated or assisted?
4. Establish different categories. People may be less likely to submit AI-generated work where it's not wanted if there is a separate category of award for work done with AI.
5. Make like Elsa and let it go. If all of this seems too onerous, you can just accept that people will likely use the tools available to them and not worry about it. After all, you wouldn't want me talking about using AI tools at a conference if I wasn't using them myself, right?

​Personally, I'd love to see these designs on a shirt, but I'll settle for a sticker. If you want one, too, find me Tuesday at the AI and Learning Symposium and Wednesday at 3:00 in room 122, where I'll be discussing research about trust in AI and automated systems. You can also get one from Build Capable's Sarah Mercier, who will be at the RISC booth showing off an amazing new product. See you in Dev Legas!

I recently had a conversation with a five-year-old about Roy G Biv; not some guy named Roy, but the acronym for the colors of the visible spectrum (Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, and Violet). This discussion grew from the classic child’s question, “Why is the sky blue”? The Roy G Biv conversation led to additional discussions about atmospheric backscattering, electromagnetic absorption versus reflection, and so forth. All these conversational threads shared a common origin and ending, “but why?” Eventually, cognitive fatigue got the best of me, and I relented by explaining that this is how the universe was created and that a higher authority should be consulted. This conversation stayed with me and caused me to speculate about the advantages that an AI-powered personal learning assistant might have or even accelerate a child’s education. Such an assistant would never become fatigued by a relentless series of questions and would always be available to pursue as many curiosity rabbit holes as the child desired. 

The potential advantages such a learning assistant could provide have spurred decades of discussion around this topic. What has been less widely discussed are the potential risks that AI-powered learning assistants might expose children to. The broad spectrum of risks includes everything from harmful misinformation to threats malicious cyber actors pose. In 2021, reports surfaced about the Alexa voice assistant encouraging a child to touch a penny to the exposed prongs of an electrical plug. Most people familiar with the fundamentals of safe electricity use will quickly recognize the extreme danger posed by such an action. Still, a child unaware of the potential threat might not realize the risk. A few weeks ago, Google AI advised users to put glue on pizza to prevent cheese from sliding off. This is another example of an ill-advised suggestion that would likely be humorously ignored by most adults familiar with the toxic potential of ingesting glue. Still, a young child might not recognize the danger. AI outputs are only as good as the data they ingest; no pun is intended. An older example of data poisoning a model was observed with Tay, the Microsoft chatbot, which became so vile and racist that it had to be taken offline after only 16 hours of being in service. These examples point to a few potential harms AI-powered learning assistants present if adults do not closely monitor their use.

The previous examples illustrate unintended model outputs leading to risk exposures, but what about model actions deliberately designed into the model? Deceptive design patterns (AKA dark patterns) describe product designs intended to benefit the designer but may harm the end user. A non-AI example might be defaulting to a monthly subscription rather than a one-time purchase of an item from an online store. An AI-powered learning assistant may remain in use with a particular user for several years, collecting immense amounts of highly sensitive data on that individual. This data will be precious to advertisers, criminals, political campaigns, and others. Seemingly innocuous interactions might be deceptive patterns designed to elicit highly personal and private information about that user for later resale.

These previous examples derive from relatively benign motivations (selling someone something or getting them to vote a certain way). Still, it is essential also to consider the risk AI assistants pose if truly evil cyber threat actors gain control of them. The parents of a 10-month-old girl were horrified when they learned that a threat actor had breached their baby monitor and was actively watching their child. They discovered that the device had been compromised when they overheard a man screaming at their baby while she was sleeping in her crib. In 2023, 26,718 incidents of sextortion against children were reported. This crime usually involves convincing minors to commit sexual acts in front of a web camera and then using that compromising material to extort them. These reports involved relatively passive devices connected to the web. An AI-powered learning assistant designed to understand social and emotional cues can be easily repurposed to manipulate and exploit psychological and emotional vulnerabilities.
​
There is a saying that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs. This concept especially applies to AI learning assistants. Such personalized assistants will undoubtedly usher in new and unanticipated benefits for children’s learning development worldwide and provide children across all socio-economic segments with unprecedented learning opportunities. However, UX and instructional designers must be mindful of the tradeoffs and carefully weigh the costs and the benefits when designing these technologies.

This is a true crime story. Names have been removed to protect the innocent.

One of my friends is an established author in the learning industry. Recently, she released her second book to great acclaim. One day, she checked her author page and to her shock and horror, an unauthorized book had appeared. "Sell Buy Create Relation Hip" was not written by her. Despite many complaints to Amazon, it was not taken down until very recently. However, this was not before three additional "fake" books showed up. Here's a snippet from one of them, "Learn to Use Time:"

Who would do such a thing? A reasonable first reaction was to blame AI. After all, LLMs hallucinate, right? Besides, it fits the narrative about AI taking our jobs and leaving us with mass-produced, mindless garbage. However, I wasn't so sure. It's not typical for LLMs to write total nonsense unless you make them, and this was comically bad. I wanted to see whether I could solve this mystery using AI - fighting fire with fire, if you will.

There are many tools that purport to detect AI in writing, and they are being used by some academic institutions to determine whether a student used a LLM to "cheat." Sometimes, they get it wrong, and false positives can have lasting consequences for students. I used this mystery as an opportunity to investigate for myself.

OpenAI's ChatGPT enables you to create your own GPTs, and there are several devoted to detecting AI in writing. I ran the sample above through several of them. The most popular, Zero GPT Detector, said it was written by a human:

This was getting borderline racist, but I figured I'd throw everything I could at it. After incorporating word choice, literal translations, syntax and sentence structure, it came to the following conclusion: 

So, we pull off the mask to find… a Korean and/or Chinese-speaking counterfeit scam artist! The emphasis on personal responsibility and moral character gave it away! Wait, what?

Obviously, this is not how forensic scientists determine authorship of mystery texts. We will never know whether these books were written by a lazy AI or are a product of an overseas underground fake book mill, or both. When it comes to making these determinations in the age of LLMs, we still have a lot of work to do. And if we're not careful, it's very easy to point the finger in the wrong direction.

I have two younger brothers, and once a week, the Solberg kids have a phone call. We each hold management positions in the technology world, so we swap notes about work a lot. We may be one of the few families with a running joke about Kubernetes. After our call the other day, my brother Mike sent me this article from the National Bureau of Economic Research, and I have been geeking out over it ever since. From what I can tell, it’s one of the first studies on how generative AI can improve an organization’s effectiveness – and not just in terms of its bottom line.

Something I’ve been thinking about is how to train empathy. If you work in user experience, you understand how important empathy is to good design. Often, we end up working with solutions that suffer from “developer-centered design,” where features are built to check a box while minimizing the work for the development team. Also, we see “stakeholder-centered design,” where software development happens to impress someone with a pile of money. At the end of the day, if the people who need your solution can’t figure out how to use it, none of the rest of it matters.
​
Empathy means putting yourself in someone else’s shoes. More importantly, it involves caring about other people, which seems hard to come by these days. Wouldn’t it be great if we could make something that teaches people how to do that? For a long time, I wondered whether virtual reality could show you someone else’s perspective, and I still think it could. This study shows there may be a different way.

The study took place in a large software company’s customer support department. Working a help desk is a job where empathy is key to success. Not only do you have to be able to solve an irate and frustrated customer’s problem, you have to ensure they have a positive experience with you. In this research, customer support agents were given an AI chat assistant to help them diagnose problems but also engage with customers in an appropriate way. The assistant was built using the same large language model as the AI chatbot everyone loves to hate, ChatGPT. The assistant monitored the chats between customers and agents and provided agents real-time recommendations for how to respond, which agents could either take or ignore. As a result, overall productivity improved by almost 14% in terms of the number of issues resolved. Inexperienced agents rapidly learned to perform at the same level as more experienced ones. The assistant was trained on expert responses, so following its advice usually gave you the same answer an expert would give.
​
Here’s where it gets really interesting: a sentiment analysis of the chats showed that as a result of using the assistant, there was an immediate improvement in customer sentiment. The conversations novice agents were having were nicer. The assistant was trained to provide polite, empathetic recommendations, and over a short period of time, inexperienced agents adopted these behaviors in their own chats. Not only were they better at solving their customers’ problems, but the tone of the conversation was overall more positive. The agents learned very quickly how to be nice because the AI modeled that behavior for them. As a result, customers were happier, management needed to intervene less frequently, and employee attrition dropped.
​
The irony of AI teaching people how to be better human beings is palpable. Are the agents that used the assistant more empathetic? We don’t know, but from a “fake it until you make it” perspective, it’s a good start. That aside, this study is an example of how this technology could help people with all sorts of communication issues function at a high level in emotionally demanding jobs. Maybe we should spend a little more time thinking about how it could help many people succeed where they previously couldn’t and focusing less on how it’s not particularly good at Googling things.

I didn't write a word of that. It was produced by ChatGPT ( https://chat.openai.com/), an AI chatbot that launched to the public on November 30. Since its launch, it's been at the forefront of the tech news cycle because it's both very good and very easy to use. Yesterday, I asked it to write a literature review on a couple of topics and pasted the results in QIC's Teams. They all got a weird, uneasy feeling reading it; we all joke about the day "the robots will take our jobs," but we hadn't realized that our jobs were on the list of those that could be so easily automated. Is the copy above particularly eloquent? No. Does it answer the mail for a lot of things? Yes. And sometimes, as they say, that's good enough for government work.

The QIC crew wasn't alone in their unease. Across the internet, authors are writing to minimize the impact of technology like this or demonize it. If you try hard enough, you can make it do racist things. It'll help kids cheat at school. But that's not really why we react to it the way we do, is it? It's the realization something we thought made us human - the ability to create - is not something only we can do. In fact, it's not even something we can do as efficiently as something that is not only inhuman, it's not even alive.

While I was playing with ChatGPT, many of my friends were posting AI-generated stylized selfies using the Lensa app. Its popularity reignited a similar discussion in the art community. Aside from the data privacy discussion we've been having since the Cambridge Analytica fiasco, artists are rightly concerned about ownership and the ability to make money from their work. At the core, though, it's the same fear that if AI can do your job, where does that leave you?

When robots were anticipated to take over the world, many of us expected they would take the jobs we didn't want, like fertilizing crops and driving trucks. These were supposed to be the jobs that are physically exhausting, dangerous, and monotonous. They weren't supposed to be the ones that we went into thousands of dollars of student loan debt to be qualified to do. We didn't think it would be so easy for a machine to do something that when we do it reflects our feelings and thoughts. The phrase “intellectual property” presupposes an intellect, and an intellect presupposes a person.

As one who tries to maintain cautious optimism about the future of technology, I find it exciting that I may live to see the day when AI is far more efficient at most things than I am. Obviously, there’s a lot we have to consider from an ethics perspective. I’ve watched the Avengers enough times to appreciate the potential for Ultron to make decisions we might not like as a species. But that day is coming, and it’s important to have those conversations now. On a broader level, it’s time we start thinking about what it means for us as creative people, what we value, and why we are special on this planet. Because I do believe that we are.