Berani dalam Benar : FPK is the guardrails for AI!

It was a privilege to be involved in the UM Hari Akademia celebration last week with the theme: 121 Years of Excellence: Weaving the Future. It was a very invigorating session to coincide with the university’s 121 anniversary, hence the UM121 Flagship. Being the country’s oldest institution of higher learning, as well as the best “ranked” according to a commercial vendor, much can be gained from such sharing events. It is organised by the Faculty of Education, with the support of the Ministry of Education.

Not surprising much of the discussion revolves around the “future” of education, the training of teachers and academics for the times ahead ably put forward in the opening speeches and later followed by a distinguished dialogue session and panel session to further understand the challenges ahead given the uncertain development worldwide. Needless to say, an elaborate discussion on AI was shared as to how AI can “contribute” to the future. It was made very obvious that what is needed is literally a “good” handphone that can receive messages from a particular AI, and in turn act as an intermediate for the following tasks desired. It was impressive to know that this extends from the making of an AI University, purported to be the country’s first, to a property development scheme, let alone on matters of theses development and assessment, book and journal reviews, as well as research evaluation. In fact, a locally designed AI tool was proposed to undertake several, if not all of the processes involved, at almost to cost at all. This sounds too good to be true under the present circumstances where competition is very intense, yet it cannot be totally ruled out since AI is deemed as an aid to human endeavours with its capacity said to supersede that of humans exponentially.

In fact, the audience was reminded several times not to “compete” with the technological counterpart! The takeaway lesson is to utilise AI "wisely" for the desired purpose without so much human interference so as to reap the full benefit of the technology moving forward. While it is recognised that the human persons still have a role to play, it is very limited so much so that it is quoted that the AI even has the capacity to “kill” humans if it decided to do so, at any point in the journey to be fully developed.

This issue was picked up during panel discussion in trying to bridge the alleged widening gap between humans and the machine that is created by humans in the first place. In other words, how can AI be humanised such that the humans will remain in “control” of AI, and not the reverse. One argument is to have guardrails to ensure this will take place. Here is where that notion of being human becomes important as an integral part of education in the real sense of the word, which is now losing its appeal, if not in reality. After all, AI is a human-made product, intellectually at least, and the opposite is about to happen. That is, humans are beginning to be machine-like, whereas ironically machines are closing in to be more human! To do this, humans must be taught to be human first which sounds simple enough but is never undertaken in all seriousness. Because education is more often than not being retheorised into an economic entity, a commodity that is tradeable for economic interest in line with the Human Capital Theory as part of the western education. It is well documented that “Human Capital Theory is the most influential economic theory of Western education, setting the framework of government policies since the early 1960s,” according to Fitzsimons (2015).  In the context of the recent PISA results, "young people not only have lower literacy skills," said the founder of the programme, also "we are seeing the declined in students' capacity to triangulate and to critically reflect on information, to engage with more complex text." He relates this to essential skills in AI. He also described a vicious cycle in which young people's use of such tools is further "hollowing out exactly the capabilities that we need" - that is, to think harder. Students who are not using AI reportedly tend to be higher performing.  

Against this background, it is proposed that the Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan (National Education Philosophy, FPK, 1996) be the structural foundation to understand what education truly is as spelt out in the Education Act. In other words, AI must meet the essence of FPK before it could be duly introduced in education within the Malaysian context. More specifically, the five major elements as expressed in the FPK must be the guardrails to the use of AI in all circumstances so that humanity, humanitarian values and dignity are well preserved in handling the concept of AI as it evolves from a tool to an agent. Namely, turning it to be a “capital” as the case is today. This trend is attributed to the rapid advancement of technologies like AI, which can undermine the traditional learning methods, diminishing critical skills among students as human beings. 

According to Fitzsimons: “A key strategy in determining economic performance has been to employ a conception of individuals as human capital and various economic metaphors such as “technological change,” “research,” “innovation,” “productivity,” “education,” and “competitiveness.” Economic considerations per se in the past, however, have not determined education, he added. It is time, therefore, to reassert this in humanising education in the era of AI – not of Artificial Intelligence – but “Authentic Intelligence.”   

In other words, the FPK and its five major elements must be further taught and rooted to humanise education in nurturing better humans who are balanced and harmonious in the context of “Insan Sejahtera” as per FPK. Not “modal insan berkederasan bantuan (AI)” which currently the distortion, even before AI becomes fashionable. 

Congratulations UM for being bold enough to move such critical forum to mark the future and leading way for a more balanced and harmonious life ahead. Good luck!