Answers.Body: <h1>Computers are stupid</h1>
  <p>Do some role playing.
  Have students describe how to draw a house, they can not use house words, just geometry words: line, square, triangle, etc.</p>
  <p>Get one volunteer to  take a pen to the white board, they don't know what is being described, and follow instructions (I normally take on this role first. I do what they say, <strong>but not what the mean</strong>).</p>
  <h1>Dangers of AI</h1>
  <p>The evil, or not so evil overlords: AI does what it was asked to do. AI algorithms but us into silos, make us vote for trump and brexit, advertise to us, etc.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-24T13:21:34.667Z
Answers.Text: This is important to impress on people, computers are machines, just as Ada Lovelace said. No matter how complex and sophisticated, until they become self-aware, they are not thinking, understanding, deciding... They are as dumb as a piece of silicon and have no insight. People in China or Japan, I forget which, are currently talking with a conversing voice on their phones because they are lonely. Humans are very easily drawn in  to anything that remotely seems like an interaction, because we have to care for infants, and we make huge efforts to see them as beings. Computers are not.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scott Rowe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-24T13:59:10.697Z
Answers.Text: @ScottRowe it is not the silicone of it that makes in dumb. Look at how it works. There is a control-unit conducting the orchestra, but unable to hear, and does not even know what the instruments are. There is the ACU, being controlled by the control-unit, just doing logic operations on its input, and outputting something that makes sense to the programmer. None of this remembers what it just did, so no program could be written to allow self awareness (If you try to make it self aware, then it can only be aware of the current instruction: a part of the self-awareness program).
Answers.UserDisplayName: ctrl-alt-delor
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-24T14:14:10.443Z
Answers.Text: Some people argue that humans cannot possibly have consciousness either, because they are composed of material substances following deterministic laws. Consciousness has never been adequately explained, indeed, people can not even agree on a definition. It would be better if people realized that they are not unmaterial and special also. We somehow have insight, but it does not guarantee anything, least of all correct conclusions. We are smarter than a lump of silicon, but perhaps not for long. Then we really will be able to have insightful conversations with conversing voices.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scott Rowe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-24T14:19:21.810Z
Answers.Text: I don't thing that the material has anything to do with it. I don't see any reason why silicone etc. can't do what carbon etc. does. I only see that the current computer configurations can not be self-aware. Maybe one day, we will work out how to do it differently, and then they will take over and turn us all into fertiliser.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ctrl-alt-delor
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-24T15:05:17.837Z
Answers.Text: We keep pets. I see no reason why an intelligence greater than ours would not simply do the same. My cat has a longer and healthier life than a wild kitty, but probably more boring. These are details that something smarter than ourselves would find trivial. Besides, humans might have interesting and useful perspectives that an AI lacks. It need not be adversarial. My dog could catch Frisbees way better and run faster than I could, to say nothing of nose and ear sensitivity. But modern computers are still dumb, despite playing Chess and Go (and probably driving vehicles) better.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Scott Rowe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-25T17:22:48.133Z
Answers.Text: @ctrl-alt-delor Re, "...none of this remembers what it just did, so no program could be written to allow self awareness." That sounds like non-sequitur. Natural-language understanding systems going all the way back to [SHRDLU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHRDLU) in 1968 can answer questions about "what they just did" even though they run on computing machinery whose isolated functional units are incapable of answering that same question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Solomon Slow
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-25T20:43:21.390Z
Answers.Text: @SolomonSlow I did not say that we could not program a simulation.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ctrl-alt-delor
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-26T12:48:56.837Z
Answers.Text: I think you misunderstood me. I meant to call attention to the huge number of layers of abstraction that come between what digital circuits in a computer system do and what a software application running on that platform can do. All modern computers are Turing complete. So, if you think that Turing completeness is sufficient to support AI, then there's no reason to drill down through all of those layers to explain it. But, maybe you think that "Turing complete"=="stupid" (i.e., not sufficient to support _real_ intelligence.) If so, then maybe you could explain why.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Solomon Slow
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-26T13:48:19.620Z
Answers.Text: @SolomonSlow Oh good point. I was wondering a few weeks ago “Is Turing complete enough” — I still don't know. However my self-awareness, dose not go down to the lowest level, so maybe a Turing complete machine can be aware of its higher levels but like me not its lower levels.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ctrl-alt-delor
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-27T21:58:44.253Z
Answers.Text: "I do what they say, **but not what the mean**." Huh? Abort.
Answers.UserDisplayName: philipxy
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-03-22T20:07:39.337Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-03-22T20:07:39.337Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-06-18T08:36:57.023Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: ctrl-alt-delor
Body: <p>I am my school's new AI Program Architect and I also serve on the national AI4K12.org working group that is writing K12 AI Standards. I would love to ensure that we are broadly including CS educators and their ideas in writing programs and curricula that encompass the field of AI for K-12.</p>
  
  <p>What AI resources do you use in your class?
  What are the essential ideas that students need to know?
  What should students be able to do at the end of class? 
  If you incorporate AI in cross-disciplinary courses, please share those ideas as well.  </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-21T14:41:23.867Z
Comments.Text: Are you focused on HS (Secondary education) or otherwise (broader, other)?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Buffy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-21T15:33:03.690Z
Comments.Text: My standards work is K-2; I teach at a high school.  We are creating programs for both in-house at the upper 11-12 level and more broadly at the K12 level, both formal an informal.  So, I will happily take all suggestions!
Comments.UserDisplayName: Charlotte Dungan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-21T15:37:01.703Z
Comments.Text: Elementary ed too? I assume you meant K-12 not K-2.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Buffy
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-21T20:39:16.013Z
Comments.Text: You may want to check out [this question](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/what-belongs-in-a-low-math-undergraduate-ai-elective-besides-ml) - it's not a duplicate, but it's similar enough that it might well be helpful.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ben I.
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-22T17:25:37.660Z
Comments.Text: @Buffy, My standards work is K-2, as I am on that grade band team.  I've taught every grade throughout my career.  Currently I work at a high school, and we are creating curricular resources for K-12.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Charlotte Dungan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-25T11:42:06.913Z
Comments.Text: This needs more context to be truly answerable. Is the target audience completely generalist (i.e. the goal is to give literature students a broad-brush idea of current notions of AI), interested in CS in general but not necessarily specifically in AI, or specifically interested in AI and already knowledgeable about foundations of CS? How much time is available?
Comments.UserDisplayName: Peter Taylor
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-03-29T18:32:09.640Z
Comments.Text: Hi @CharlotteDungan, just FYI I sent this question on to two people who teach A.I. in the k-12 space, both started writing answers, and both stopped because they felt like the question was too broad (ie. would take too much effort to write a proper response). This question is absolutely topical, but you might want to break it up into smaller, separate questions to obtain more answers.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Ben I.
Tags: <artificial-intelligence>
Title: What are the essential ideas that students need to know about Artificial Intelligence?
ThreadText: # What are the essential ideas that students need to know about Artificial Intelligence?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-03-21)
  
  I am my school's new AI Program Architect and I also serve on the national AI4K12.org working group that is writing K12 AI Standards. I would love to ensure that we are broadly including CS educators and their ideas in writing programs and curricula that encompass the field of AI for K-12.
  
  What AI resources do you use in your class?
  What are the essential ideas that students need to know?
  What should students be able to do at the end of class?
  If you incorporate AI in cross-disciplinary courses, please share those ideas as well.
  
  **Tags:** artificial-intelligence
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Are you focused on HS (Secondary education) or otherwise (broader, other)?  
  > **username_0**: My standards work is K-2; I teach at a high school.  We are creating programs for both in-house at the upper 11-12 level and more broadly at the K12 level, both formal an informal.  So, I will happily take all suggestions!  
  > **username_1**: Elementary ed too? I assume you meant K-12 not K-2.  
  > **username_2**: You may want to check out [this question](https://cseducators.stackexchange.com/questions/5080/what-belongs-in-a-low-math-undergraduate-ai-elective-besides-ml) - it's not a duplicate, but it's similar enough that it might well be helpful.  
  > **username_0**: @username_1, My standards work is K-2, as I am on that grade band team.  I've taught every grade throughout my career.  Currently I work at a high school, and we are creating curricular resources for K-12.  
  > **username_3**: This needs more context to be truly answerable. Is the target audience completely generalist (i.e. the goal is to give literature students a broad-brush idea of current notions of AI), interested in CS in general but not necessarily specifically in AI, or specifically interested in AI and already knowledgeable about foundations of CS? How much time is available?  
  > **username_2**: Hi @username_0, just FYI I sent this question on to two people who teach A.I. in the k-12 space, both started writing answers, and both stopped because they felt like the question was too broad (ie. would take too much effort to write a proper response). This question is absolutely topical, but you might want to break it up into smaller, separate questions to obtain more answers.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2019-03-22. Score: 2
  
  # Computers are stupid
  
  Do some role playing.
  Have students describe how to draw a house, they can not use house words, just geometry words: line, square, triangle, etc.
  
  Get one volunteer to take a pen to the white board, they don't know what is being described, and follow instructions (I normally take on this role first. I do what they say, **but not what the mean**).
  
  # Dangers of AI
  
  The evil, or not so evil overlords: AI does what it was asked to do. AI algorithms but us into silos, make us vote for trump and brexit, advertise to us, etc.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_5**: This is important to impress on people, computers are machines, just as Ada Lovelace said. No matter how complex and sophisticated, until they become self-aware, they are not thinking, understanding, deciding... They are as dumb as a piece of silicon and have no insight. People in China or Japan, I forget which, are currently talking with a conversing voice on their phones because they are lonely. Humans are very easily drawn in  to anything that remotely seems like an interaction, because we have to care for infants, and we make huge efforts to see them as beings. Computers are not.  
  > **username_4**: @username_5 it is not the silicone of it that makes in dumb. Look at how it works. There is a control-unit conducting the orchestra, but unable to hear, and does not even know what the instruments are. There is the ACU, being controlled by the control-unit, just doing logic operations on its input, and outputting something that makes sense to the programmer. None of this remembers what it just did, so no program could be written to allow self awareness (If you try to make it self aware, then it can only be aware of the current instruction: a part of the self-awareness program).  
  > **username_5**: Some people argue that humans cannot possibly have consciousness either, because they are composed of material substances following deterministic laws. Consciousness has never been adequately explained, indeed, people can not even agree on a definition. It would be better if people realized that they are not unmaterial and special also. We somehow have insight, but it does not guarantee anything, least of all correct conclusions. We are smarter than a lump of silicon, but perhaps not for long. Then we really will be able to have insightful conversations with conversing voices.  
  > **username_4**: I don't thing that the material has anything to do with it. I don't see any reason why silicone etc. can't do what carbon etc. does. I only see that the current computer configurations can not be self-aware. Maybe one day, we will work out how to do it differently, and then they will take over and turn us all into fertiliser.  
  > **username_5**: We keep pets. I see no reason why an intelligence greater than ours would not simply do the same. My cat has a longer and healthier life than a wild kitty, but probably more boring. These are details that something smarter than ourselves would find trivial. Besides, humans might have interesting and useful perspectives that an AI lacks. It need not be adversarial. My dog could catch Frisbees way better and run faster than I could, to say nothing of nose and ear sensitivity. But modern computers are still dumb, despite playing Chess and Go (and probably driving vehicles) better.  
  > **username_6**: @username_4 Re, "...none of this remembers what it just did, so no program could be written to allow self awareness." That sounds like non-sequitur. Natural-language understanding systems going all the way back to [SHRDLU](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHRDLU) in 1968 can answer questions about "what they just did" even though they run on computing machinery whose isolated functional units are incapable of answering that same question.  
  > **username_4**: @username_6 I did not say that we could not program a simulation.  
  > **username_6**: I think you misunderstood me. I meant to call attention to the huge number of layers of abstraction that come between what digital circuits in a computer system do and what a software application running on that platform can do. All modern computers are Turing complete. So, if you think that Turing completeness is sufficient to support AI, then there's no reason to drill down through all of those layers to explain it. But, maybe you think that "Turing complete"=="stupid" (i.e., not sufficient to support _real_ intelligence.) If so, then maybe you could explain why.  
  > **username_4**: @username_6 Oh good point. I was wondering a few weeks ago “Is Turing complete enough” — I still don't know. However my self-awareness, dose not go down to the lowest level, so maybe a Turing complete machine can be aware of its higher levels but like me not its lower levels.  
  > **username_7**: "I do what they say, **but not what the mean**." Huh? Abort.  
  
  ---
  
  