Symbiotic Intelligence and Supervision in the Education Sector

Can artificial intelligence (AI) serve as an academic supervisor for pupils, students, and PhD candidates?Is this a form of anthropomorphism?The answer depends on how we define "artificial intelligence" and "human, " and whether cognitive and intellectual capabilities are reserved exclusively for human beings.One of the first things that comes to mind with this thematic entry point is the lack of a conceptual apparatus that can adequately comprehend this current inflection point in AI development.It is easy to fall back on the human-versus-machine metaphor-but does that still hold today?In everyday discourse, it is quite common to assume a reductionist understanding of AI and large language models (LLMs), referring to them as merely technology, tools, or machines.This stands in contrast to the prevailing assumption that AI must constantly be compared to human abilities.One can thus ask whether this assumption and such reductionism truly grasp what LLMs are and what they are capable of.In both my AI book (Krumsvik, 2023a) and in an AI article (Krumsvik, 2023c), I argue that while this dichotomy may be understandable in everyday language, it becomes more problematic in academic discourse.All too often, such comparisons are based on a classic circular argument, where the conclusion is presupposed by the premise:Premise: "Thinking" is defined as something only humans do.Conclusion: AI cannot think, because it is not human.The conclusion logically follows, but only because the premise already assumes the outcome.Regardless of the capabilities AI demonstrates, the definition itself ensures the desired result.This is known as petitio principii, or begging the question, and such reasoning downplays what AI may actually be capable of.To reserve the term "thinking" for humans is a matter of definition; functionally, models like o3 already perform many of the operations we associate with thinking.Just as a helicopter can "fly" without flapping its wings like a bird, o3 can "think" without functioning like a human brain.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy
Published
2025-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.18261/njdl.20.2.1
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.48
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Symbiotic Intelligence and Supervision in the Education Sector

Rune Johan Krumsvik
1 citations
Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy
Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
2.48
article

Symbiotic Intelligence and Supervision in the Education Sector

Rune Johan Krumsvik
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Can artificial intelligence (AI) serve as an academic supervisor for pupils, students, and PhD candidates?Is this a form of anthropomorphism?The answer depends on how we define "artificial intelligence" and "human, " and whether cognitive and intellectual capabilities are reserved exclusively for human beings.One of the first things that comes to mind with this thematic entry point is the lack of a conceptual apparatus that can adequately comprehend this current inflection point in AI development.It is easy to fall back on the human-versus-machine metaphor-but does that still hold today?In everyday discourse, it is quite common to assume a reductionist understanding of AI and large language models (LLMs), referring to them as merely technology, tools, or machines.This stands in contrast to the prevailing assumption that AI must constantly be compared to human abilities.One can thus ask whether this assumption and such reductionism truly grasp what LLMs are and what they are capable of.In both my AI book (Krumsvik, 2023a) and in an AI article (Krumsvik, 2023c), I argue that while this dichotomy may be understandable in everyday language, it becomes more problematic in academic discourse.All too often, such comparisons are based on a classic circular argument, where the conclusion is presupposed by the premise:Premise: "Thinking" is defined as something only humans do.Conclusion: AI cannot think, because it is not human.The conclusion logically follows, but only because the premise already assumes the outcome.Regardless of the capabilities AI demonstrates, the definition itself ensures the desired result.This is known as petitio principii, or begging the question, and such reasoning downplays what AI may actually be capable of.To reserve the term "thinking" for humans is a matter of definition; functionally, models like o3 already perform many of the operations we associate with thinking.Just as a helicopter can "fly" without flapping its wings like a bird, o3 can "think" without functioning like a human brain.

Nordic Journal of Digital LiteracyVol. 20(2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
2.48
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.