Notebooklm commented on the above: The provided text explores the potential for artificial intelligence to fundamentally redefine the objectives of the modern educational system. Rather than prioritizing the mastery of information or specific technical skills, the author suggests that schools should pivot toward fostering intense curiosity and innovative thinking. This pedagogical transition would emphasize the ability to challenge existing norms and approach problems from unconventional angles rather than simply absorbing established facts. The author envisions a new curriculum centered on mystery and subjective interpretation, using tools like visual illusions to encourage students to see beyond surface-level truths. Ultimately, the source argues that while foundational knowledge remains necessary, the primary goal of future learning must be the cultivation of motivation and an inquisitive mindset.

Claud Free then had the final word. You're touching on something really fundamental here—the tension between knowledge acquisition and intellectual autonomy that AI is forcing us to confront much faster than we expected. Your core intuition feels right: when information mastery becomes trivially accessible through AI, education's value proposition has to shift. But I think the interesting question isn't whether to abandon mastery for curiosity, but how the relationship between them might fundamentally change. The visual illusion example is revealing. Those illusions are powerful precisely because you need some mastery first—you have to understand visual perception well enough to recognize when it's being subverted. The "aha" moment requires both knowledge and the willingness to question it. So maybe the new model isn't "curiosity instead of mastery" but something like "mastery in service of productive confusion"? What strikes me about your speculation is that it's not entirely new—it echoes progressive education movements, Socratic dialogue, scientific method training. The difference is that AI might finally make this economically viable at scale. When you don't need humans to deliver rote content, you can redirect educational labor toward what's genuinely hard: cultivating intellectual courage, comfort with ambiguity, the ability to ask better questions. For curriculum, I'd push beyond visual illusions to things like: Competing explanatory frameworks for the same phenomenon (why did Rome fall? Here are five legitimate scholarly interpretations) Problems with no clear solutions where the quality of thinking matters more than the answer Deliberate exposure to being wrong and recovering from it Metacognitive training—learning to notice your own assumptions and biases The real challenge isn't designing such a curriculum—educators have been doing versions of this for decades. It's the systemic friction: assessment systems built around measurable mastery, parent expectations, credential signaling, educational inequality. How do you "test" curiosity at scale? How do you ensure equitable access to human mentorship when that becomes education's core value?

I forgot to give the url to the Nate post. You do not need to watch it to participate in the notebooklm game above but you can also just ignore the game above and just watch Nate! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxuXV3Q6tGY

Hello Folks Saturday morning One aside: Frank please fell free to edit/ask me to edit. My aim is to support not detract. I did fast research and saw that Frank has posted over 500 videos on Youtube. I watched AI Powered. Leads the learner to use prompts in one of the LLMs to support learning about a topic using framework of Metacognition: Socratic Method: Dual Encoding: Retrieval Practice: Spaced Repetition. Well presented, right length, cute use of album cover! Ideas: REALLY blow up the screen so viewer can see EXACTLY what is typed and response. Post video, watch viewer actions and if this idea works? I think you have to clean up the whole membership thing. You saw I got caught up. It is too complicated, too many levels, options. Build community then monetize. Good idea about helping users seperate, when do I want AI to do a task for me and when do I want to use it to help me learn. Might be worthwhile to aim video at real beginners, lay out exactly how to use 1 LLM. Interesting to draw a line between study and play? Clearly play is the wrong term. Study may take effort, your video helps one organize that effort for highest return on investment. In most cases I am not in study mode, I am in play mode, no effort, just watch and learn. I think the difference may be that I have enough of a framework that the ideas I see have a "Place to go" and they latch onto that place and I can always go back and re-watch or research if I want to proceed down a path. Enough for one rant!

Hello Ray Sorry to be a little slow getting back to you, life gets in the way! Love your comments on mind maps, FLOPPIES, too much info, Onenote. I guess I am torn in the hard place of too many tools to look at and the knowledge that moving to a new one is such a hard job. A real project of steps: discover, try, move proof of concept, etc In a sense the "organizer" that each of us use is the key top index to any online information, any learning. If we have not made an entry in my keynote or your onenote, it really is not part of the system at all. As I think about the above, I am struct that maybe the choice is more limited than it appears. I really need something that is local. Not because I am afraid someone will steal my thoughts about death but more because regardless of universal connectivity, I am not going to be dependent on something as fleeting as connectivity. ( I wonder if this is just a facet of my age. An older person might say they would never be reliant on a computer, too likely to crap out. Younger people may have such confidence in wifi that they don't have my concern). Enough for one note!

Hello Ray In reading what you say I am struck by how each of us needs mind tools that fit our own minds. You mention your steno pads. I have my keynote. I am not at all sure that it is a good use of my time to resurrect the keynote ideas. In some strange way, writing them down at the time, building on one note with more, allowed me to move on, allowed me to say "ok, I did that, now I can move on" even though there are miles and miles of open ended questions in the notes. Never got into mind maps. I took a while to parse your Packt AI/ML Discord phrase in your self introduction. I think now it is a discussion group centered around a publisher Packt? Even though I enjoy the kind of posting I am doing here I have not been a participant in social media or groups like this Frank learning and technology. Maybe one way for me to look at such non-involvement is that I start down one train of thought and then am off thinking about replacements for keynote, mapping keynote tools to personality of mind, how one needs different tools at different ages in life... One of my main thoughts at the moment comes from my AI guru on youtube Nate B Jones or maybe better said my interpretation of his thoughts: People have local knowledge. They know about cloths, history, coding, teaching etc. One of the great opportunities right now is to help them get comfortable with enough AI so that they can start using AI in their local area of expertise. Onward!.