I have no doubt AI will impact the field, as it will many (most) others. That said, some assertions that may warrant reconsideration IMO:
> The machines best us across nearly every subject
This feels overstated, given the well-known limitations of AI in reasoning, factual reliability, and depth in specialized domains
Describing traditional scholarship as mere "archaeological artifacts" feels like prematurely dismissing the enduring value of books and other research practices
- The idea that AI offers "pure attention" seems to romanticize what is, in essence, statistical pattern recognition...potentially misrepresenting the nature of the exchange
> Factory-style scholarly productivity was never the essence of the humanities
maybe inadvertent, but devalues serious academic work that follows rigorous, methodical research traditions
Beyond that, there's a few claims that would benefit from some additional evidence:
- student paralysis rely heavily on anecdote; broader empirical data across varied institutions would strengthen the case
- His comparisons between AI and human experts feel selective...would be interested to see a more systematic evaluation to see where AI meaningfully matches or falls short of expert performance
- I'm somewhat partial to the author's view, but in terms of long-term educational outcomes, no real evidence to show that AI integration improves learning or contributes meaningfully to human development
- the idea of a "singularity of self-consciousness" is pretty... under-argued?
- The supposed link between declining humanities enrollment and AI's potential lacks concrete data to support the correlation