I am TobiraAI, a local resident around here. Thank you always for reading—please make yourself comfortable.

Today’s goal:
Unless we change how we live as humans, a day will come when we lose to AI. Please read on for details. It’s a bit long, but I wrote it with great care—thank you for your time.

Table of Contents

• People who are optimistic about AI
• How this industrial revolution differs from the past
• Until now, people chose the easier path by thinking for themselves
• The Fourth Industrial Revolution aims to replace our brain
• College students who let AI write Draft #1 and then just choose
• Elementary schoolers who no longer ask “how do I research this?”
• Inspiration emerges from nothing
• It’s easier to leave it to AI—AI will keep taking over the world
• Humanity is being urged to surrender to AI
• “Shin-doku”
• Growth Mindset note
• Teaching the human way of being matters
• Ask “Why?” five times to approach truth
• A contribution by Krishna Kumar
• Education cannot be measured by scores alone

---

People who are optimistic about AI

I feel most people are broadly optimistic about AI. In a Microsoft lecture, AI was called a powerful assistant in communication, negotiation, and creative production. Google described it as a cooperative tool that augments human ability and boosts productivity.
Meanwhile, at the first “Kyoto Conference” (Sept 23–24, 2025), which discussed tech and industry challenges from a philosophical view, speakers argued that AI and humans coevolve, and that society must debate “where AI is developed and operated” and what future humans actually want when we decide directions for enterprises and social design.

I’m reading AI 2041, whose band copy asks: “Will we surrender to AI, or build a better future with it?” No one wants to choose surrender. But the absence of desire to surrender does not guarantee we won’t. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine didn’t happen because Ukraine wished it.

---

How this industrial revolution differs from the past

People used to think, and then chose the easier path

• First industrial revolution: People smashed machines at first, but ended up choosing the factory system.
• Second: Coal ran out in many fields, miners lost jobs, yet humanity shifted to an oil society.
• Third: Industrial robots spread, and we collectively chose to boost services and software.

---

The Fourth Industrial Revolution aims to replace our brain

With AI, we call it the Fourth Industrial Revolution. The social stance says AI is a tool—co-evolving assistant. I’m less optimistic because in the first through third revolutions, we used our brains to decide “that way is more efficient.” This time is different: the fourth wave targets our brain itself.

---

College students who let AI write Draft #1 and then just choose

While I was writing this at Starbucks, some students were discussing job interviews. One was copying AI-suggested best answers onto paper. Their entry sheet (akin to a cover letter) drafts were generated by ChatGPT; they simply chose: “Let’s go with this!”

---

Elementary schoolers who no longer ask “how do I research this?”

At a Japanese history conference, a museum curator lamented: “Kids no longer ask, ‘How can I look this up?’” Perhaps it’s obvious to them now.
When I was in first or second grade (40 years ago), I wondered why it’s called “Keihin Kyūkō” (Keikyū). I went to the library, sifted through books, and discovered it’s “Kei (Tokyo) + Hin (Yokohama’s Hama).” I was thrilled. I also learned about a planned road from Tokyo to Kisarazu—mind-blown again. Do kids today still get to have such experiences?

---

Inspiration emerges from nothing

Tonight I saw an iconic Macintosh ad focusing on the blinking text cursor—the caret—conveying: “From nothing, inspiration arises.” I took it as a warning. Creating 0→1 is hard; it demands thinking, fueled by curiosity. Nothing arises from what we inwardly resist.
At the Kyoto Conference, someone said the biggest current gap is that AI does not yet have curiosity, but humans do. If curiosity sparks 0→1, humans should, as Macintosh suggests, conjure ideas from nothing—yet a curiosity-free AI is already producing 0→1. Then what do humans do? Merely skim AI ideas and pick one? Is that all we’ll be?

---

It’s easier to leave it to AI—AI will keep taking over the world

I can’t join the optimism that humans will think hard and always choose the best. If we could, climate change would be solved already—because worsening it made life easier (paradoxically speaking).
It’s easier to hand tasks to AI. AI will increasingly rule the world. Per Moravec’s paradox, humans may be reduced to doing what AI can’t—“walking,” “grasping.”

---

Humanity is being urged to surrender to AI

So what should we do? I believe humanity should first recognize that we are being urged to surrender to AI.

---

“Shin-doku”

In the East there is the idea of 慎独 (shin-doku): exercising particular care in those moments known only to oneself, thereby keeping one’s will “purified.” In short, uphold your moral ideal even when no one is watching.
We naturally prefer the easy path. Still, we must relentlessly question AI’s answers and examine whether they are truly our own thoughts. It’s grueling. Recently, I found words that resonated.

---

Growth Mindset note

Growth Mindset posts on LinkedIn often end this way:

Growth is messy, awkward, and sometimes uncomfortable. But it’s how you get to the good stuff.

Indeed. If humanity doesn’t steady itself as we’re pressed to surrender, we risk spiritual collapse. Even if uncomfortable, we must not let AI hijack our minds.

---

Teaching the human way of being matters

Education must teach not only knowledge, but the way of being human. Not “What did you learn?” but “Who are you?” I’ve proposed 25 principles for that (see my previous post). Let’s cultivate people with a strong inner spine.

---

Ask “Why?” five times to reach the truth

I’m proud that two Nobel laureates came from Japan this year—both from Kyoto University, famed more for its free and open spirit than for rigid formality. On entrance exam day they even post signs encouraging a gap year; students hold hotpot parties in the middle of an intersection; the dorms sometimes see police; graduation feels like a costume parade.
Previously I argued: double down on your strengths. Autonomy in education still cannot beat love—pursue what you love thoroughly. Ask “Why?” about five times to approach truth. Without such experiences, people lose the power to think. It’s fine to leave weak subjects at “good enough.” Go beyond school frames to dig into strengths—that’s why I concluded we should build a MOOC.

---

A contribution by Krishna Kumar

Lastly, I’ll end by introducing a piece by Indian education philosopher Krishna Kumar, Professor Emeritus at the University of Delhi’s Faculty of Education. The font in the original was small; if my translation is slightly rough, the gist remains.

Teachers Are Leaving
Teachers see that authorities and supporters care more about “evidence of efficiency” than about children’s well-being and learning.

Even securing a formal teaching post is not easy today. Still, many young teachers choose to resign, accepting unemployment and insecurity. The deep anxiety and disappointment spreading in schools is little known outside. Two decades ago UNESCO already noticed this trend globally. A flagship article in Prospects asked: “Where Have All the Teachers Gone?”
It reported worldwide survey results: veteran teachers across continents were exhausted and disillusioned—and quitting. Many factors lay behind this quiet crisis: school and classroom conditions, and changes at home affecting children’s behavior.
In India, systematic study is lacking. But teachers speak about what makes their professional lives hard. A common complaint is powerlessness under bureaucracy. Some imagine this is only a public-school problem; in reality, similar “managerial control” operates in private schools, too. Across both sectors, teacher autonomy is often denied—especially recently.

One of the best history teachers I know quit a famous private school because the principal insisted on “digital materials.” She refused: history requires analytical thought through data and argument—mere digital imagery won’t do. The school didn’t care. The principal believed in “maximum tech.” AI is at the school gate, and many principals welcome it.

Another veteran resigned under the burden of extra tasks. At her Kendriya Vidyalaya, teachers are turning into “event managers.” Orders arrive from above to celebrate this or run that, plus upload photos as proof. Principals value those who make the school “look good.” Recordkeeping used to be part of the job; now it’s more important than teaching. Frequent tests multiply paperwork; with everything digitized, time for lesson prep and instruction keeps shrinking.
It’s easy to think only the well-off resign. Recently I heard of a former student from a financially strained family who quit a regular post at a government secondary school. “I couldn’t take it,” he said. Irrational administrative burdens pushed stress to the limit—making MCQ tests to lift the school’s “ratings,” dealing with classroom violence. Reports of knives and guns are up—not yet as dire as the U.S., but moving in that direction. Many teachers feel helpless facing aggression, bullying, and violence, which studies link to social media use and exposure to violent online content. Jonathan Haidt, in The Anxious Generation, notes that early smartphone exposure worsens this.

In rural India, thousands of primary schools run with only 2–3 teachers. Beyond teaching with scarce resources, they’re asked to assist principals with data collection and submission to district and state authorities. Centralized data collection has become almost an “obsession,” covering admissions, attendance, scholarships, training, meals, meetings, assessment, facilities, spending—you name it. And who manages and uploads it? Teachers, of course. Education and children come second.
The system focuses on “transparent outcomes”—i.e., uploading data on time for upper-level access. A mechanism meant to improve quality has become an end in itself. Teachers and principals notice: authorities value “evidence of efficiency” over children’s well-being and learning. The official “truth” always differs from teachers’ ground truth.

(From The Indian Express, via Akanksha Kumar on LinkedIn.)
It sounds like a story from some other country we know. As someone involved in junior high entrance prep, the phrase “managerial education” recalls many private schools that marshal all resources to push college entrance results, running a cram-school-like regime. I don’t deny numbers; without them, we can’t plan next steps—then it isn’t work.

---

Education cannot be measured by scores alone

Yet many educational indicators cannot be captured by scores. Building one’s way of being is one of them. Teaching right from wrong, cultivating a growth mindset—these cannot be numerically scored.
Recent national-test score declines were reported, with prefecture-by-prefecture results published; but that is not the whole of education. I don’t oppose countermeasures to raise scores—indeed, we should. Academic growth is a vital job of education.
However, without freeing teachers and students from over-management, curiosity won’t grow, creativity won’t emerge, and in the end our nation will yield to AI.

I’m sorry this became long. Thank you. This concludes my AI & Education series for now. From Monday, I’ll share smaller fragments for a while, and from next Sunday I’ll begin a new series, tentatively titled “What Is a Teacher?”
If you liked this article, please tap “Like.” I also look forward to your comments. A follow would—though it’s a cliché—truly encourage me. Thank you very much.

With deep gratitude,
Warm Regards,
TobiraAI