Will generative AI ‘change everything’ in education, and if so, how could we know?: assessing neohumanist and posthumanist answers

Abstract The article starts with the popular diagnosis that generative artificial intelligence (genAI) will ‘change everything’ in education and asks what such a fundamental change would entail—and if we would even notice it under our current theoretical frameworks. It then analyses two such frameworks—namely, Martha Nussbaum’s neohumanist theory and posthumanist theory—to see if they can provide guidance in this potential new situation. Nussbaum’s theory is found to fall short in terms of appreciating the potential positive developments the introduction of genAI could bring, such as the emergence of new capabilities that are not covered by her framework. Posthumanist theory faces the opposite problem—not being good enough at identifying the potentially dangerous outcomes of using genAI in the classroom. The article ends with suggestions concerning a possible path forward, incorporating the most valuable insights of each theory.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Philosophy of Education
Published
2026-03-31
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhag006
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Education
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Will generative AI ‘change everything’ in education, and if so, how could we know?: assessing neohumanist and posthumanist answers

Krzysztof Skonieczny
Journal of Philosophy of Education
Artificial Intelligence in Education
article

Will generative AI ‘change everything’ in education, and if so, how could we know?: assessing neohumanist and posthumanist answers

Krzysztof Skonieczny
article en

Abstract

Abstract The article starts with the popular diagnosis that generative artificial intelligence (genAI) will ‘change everything’ in education and asks what such a fundamental change would entail—and if we would even notice it under our current theoretical frameworks. It then analyses two such frameworks—namely, Martha Nussbaum’s neohumanist theory and posthumanist theory—to see if they can provide guidance in this potential new situation. Nussbaum’s theory is found to fall short in terms of appreciating the potential positive developments the introduction of genAI could bring, such as the emergence of new capabilities that are not covered by her framework. Posthumanist theory faces the opposite problem—not being good enough at identifying the potentially dangerous outcomes of using genAI in the classroom. The article ends with suggestions concerning a possible path forward, incorporating the most valuable insights of each theory.

Journal of Philosophy of Education
University of Warsaw (PL)
Narodowym Centrum Nauki
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 22%
Artificial Intelligence in Education
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.

Will generative AI ‘change everything’ in education, and if so, how could we know?: assessing neohumanist and posthumanist answers — Krzysztof Skonieczny · Journal of Philosophy of Education (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS