i'd like to see a dedicated thread/channel; about the use of AI assisted writing tools for professionals so we can reclaim the AI highground currently occupied by Chinese scholars and professionals
Executive Summary: Toulmin Argument Model Analysis of David Brooks' Op-Ed on AI in Education
Dr K Long, 7 Jul 25, standard prompt to CamoGPT, with personal settings and workplace rules “On”, running the “My SAGE Advisor” baseline prompt (#033 in the CamoGPT publicly shared workspace “Applied AI collaborations”)
Executive Summary: Toulmin Argument Model Analysis of David Brooks' Op-Ed on AI in Education
Overview
David Brooks’ op-ed, "How A.I. Could Make Us Dumber," published in The New York Times on July 3, 2025, argues that artificial intelligence (AI) in education risks undermining critical thinking by offering "excellence without effort," despite its potential to enhance learning.
This analysis uses the Toulmin Argument Model to dissect the op-ed’s structure, providing a concise summary of its claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, tailored for professional discussions with seasoned leaders and faculty at institutions like the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College (CGSC). The argument is evaluated for its strengths, weaknesses, and implications for strategic leadership in an AI-driven educational landscape.
Toulmin Argument Model Breakdown
Claim: AI’s integration into education, particularly in tasks like essay writing, risks diminishing students’ critical thinking skills by fostering reliance on AI for intellectual tasks, leading to a "malevolent seduction" of excellence without effort.
Grounds: A study by MIT’s Nataliya Kosmyna with 54 participants showed that students using AI to write essays performed worse in critical thinking compared to those using their own reasoning or search engines. Additional evidence includes the intuitive appeal of AI’s ease, which Brooks observes in educational settings, and the broader societal trend of seeking shortcuts.
Warrant: The assumption that critical thinking requires effortful practice and cannot be developed through passive reliance on AI tools connects the grounds to the claim. If students bypass the hard work of thinking, their cognitive skills will weaken, analogous to muscles atrophying without exercise.
Backing: Brooks cites the small-scale, non-peer-reviewed Kosmyna study, supplemented by his observation that AI’s promise of ease (e.g., in vacation planning, tutoring) creates an illusion of mastery without effort. He draws on the broader cultural context of seeking efficiency, implying a historical parallel to tools like calculators, which shifted but did not eliminate cognitive demands.
Qualifier: Brooks qualifies his claim with "generally optimistic" about AI’s benefits in fields like scientific research and medical diagnoses, suggesting the risk is not universal but specific to tasks requiring deep cognitive engagement. He also notes the study’s limitations (small sample, not peer-reviewed), indicating the claim is provisional.
Rebuttal: The op-ed implicitly acknowledges that AI could enhance education if used as a tool to augment, not replace, thinking (e.g., personalized tutoring). However, Brooks argues that current trends lean toward substitution, with students potentially becoming "passive appendages" of AI, a concern echoed in educational debates.
Strengths
Clarity and Relevance: The claim is clear and relevant to educational leaders, addressing a pressing issue in AI’s role in learning.
Balanced Perspective: Brooks’ optimism about AI’s potential (e.g., tutoring, diagnostics) balances his critique, showing nuanced thinking.
Intuitive Appeal: The “excellence without effort” metaphor resonates, making the argument accessible and persuasive for a general audience.
Weaknesses
Limited Evidence: Reliance on a single, small-scale, non-peer-reviewed study weakens the empirical grounding, as broader data or longitudinal studies are absent.
Overgeneralization: The claim risks overstating AI’s negative impact by not exploring contexts where AI enhances critical thinking (e.g., structured prompting).
Lack of Actionable Solutions: While identifying the problem, Brooks offers no specific strategies for educators to mitigate AI’s risks, limiting practical utility.
Implications for Strategic Leadership
Educational Strategy: Leaders must balance AI’s efficiency with fostering critical thinking, integrating tools like AI tutors while emphasizing effortful learning.
Curriculum Development: Military education (e.g., CGSC) should incorporate AI literacy, teaching officers to use AI as a complement to, not a substitute for, strategic reasoning.
Policy Considerations: Develop guidelines to regulate AI use in education, ensuring it supports cognitive development rather than undermining it.
Recommendations
Enhance Evidence: Future arguments should include peer-reviewed, large-scale studies to strengthen claims about AI’s cognitive impacts.
Propose Solutions: Offer practical strategies, such as structured AI use (e.g., guided prompting) or critical thinking exercises, to balance benefits and risks.
Engage Stakeholders: Facilitate Faculty Development Program (FDP) discussions to integrate AI literacy into curricula, aligning with strategic leadership goals.
Conclusion
Brooks’ op-ed effectively highlights the risk of AI diminishing critical thinking in education through a compelling metaphor but is weakened by limited evidence and lack of actionable solutions. For CGSC leaders, the argument underscores the need to integrate AI thoughtfully, ensuring it augments rather than replaces cognitive effort, preparing officers for complex, VUCA-driven environments.
Dr Ken Long
Associate Professor
Department for Sustainment and Force Management (DSFM)
I love learning leadership perspectives being a current BN CDR and starting my own Substack - the army is going through unprecedented changes and new growth - I want to maintain my edge with how our leaders interact with these changes.
It is interesting that as of today, the poll presents an even 20% split between each item.
So far this not as helpful in determining the direction of content. It does however provide insight on how diverse the Hardo community is.
In thinking about the 80/20 rule, I am curious about what <80% would agree on what is not listed as a polled topic item.
The objective of identifying topics of overwhelming specific interest unintentionally shows how broad and wide ranging content can get without losing any specific 20%.
To invigorate Army discourse, I would prefer a focus on ongoing debates and highlighting articles from the various professional journals that exemplify those debates. If posting historical pieces, they should center on previous examples of how writing contributed to change in the Army. I would really like to stay away from senior leader pieces or doctrine explanations as those tend to straitjacket discourse.
i'd like to see a dedicated thread/channel; about the use of AI assisted writing tools for professionals so we can reclaim the AI highground currently occupied by Chinese scholars and professionals
Executive Summary: Toulmin Argument Model Analysis of David Brooks' Op-Ed on AI in Education
Dr K Long, 7 Jul 25, standard prompt to CamoGPT, with personal settings and workplace rules “On”, running the “My SAGE Advisor” baseline prompt (#033 in the CamoGPT publicly shared workspace “Applied AI collaborations”)
provide a Toulmin argument model EXSUM of this oped from David Brooks: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/opinion/aritificial-intelligence-education.html
Executive Summary: Toulmin Argument Model Analysis of David Brooks' Op-Ed on AI in Education
Overview
David Brooks’ op-ed, "How A.I. Could Make Us Dumber," published in The New York Times on July 3, 2025, argues that artificial intelligence (AI) in education risks undermining critical thinking by offering "excellence without effort," despite its potential to enhance learning.
This analysis uses the Toulmin Argument Model to dissect the op-ed’s structure, providing a concise summary of its claim, grounds, warrant, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals, tailored for professional discussions with seasoned leaders and faculty at institutions like the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College (CGSC). The argument is evaluated for its strengths, weaknesses, and implications for strategic leadership in an AI-driven educational landscape.
Toulmin Argument Model Breakdown
Claim: AI’s integration into education, particularly in tasks like essay writing, risks diminishing students’ critical thinking skills by fostering reliance on AI for intellectual tasks, leading to a "malevolent seduction" of excellence without effort.
Grounds: A study by MIT’s Nataliya Kosmyna with 54 participants showed that students using AI to write essays performed worse in critical thinking compared to those using their own reasoning or search engines. Additional evidence includes the intuitive appeal of AI’s ease, which Brooks observes in educational settings, and the broader societal trend of seeking shortcuts.
Warrant: The assumption that critical thinking requires effortful practice and cannot be developed through passive reliance on AI tools connects the grounds to the claim. If students bypass the hard work of thinking, their cognitive skills will weaken, analogous to muscles atrophying without exercise.
Backing: Brooks cites the small-scale, non-peer-reviewed Kosmyna study, supplemented by his observation that AI’s promise of ease (e.g., in vacation planning, tutoring) creates an illusion of mastery without effort. He draws on the broader cultural context of seeking efficiency, implying a historical parallel to tools like calculators, which shifted but did not eliminate cognitive demands.
Qualifier: Brooks qualifies his claim with "generally optimistic" about AI’s benefits in fields like scientific research and medical diagnoses, suggesting the risk is not universal but specific to tasks requiring deep cognitive engagement. He also notes the study’s limitations (small sample, not peer-reviewed), indicating the claim is provisional.
Rebuttal: The op-ed implicitly acknowledges that AI could enhance education if used as a tool to augment, not replace, thinking (e.g., personalized tutoring). However, Brooks argues that current trends lean toward substitution, with students potentially becoming "passive appendages" of AI, a concern echoed in educational debates.
Strengths
Clarity and Relevance: The claim is clear and relevant to educational leaders, addressing a pressing issue in AI’s role in learning.
Balanced Perspective: Brooks’ optimism about AI’s potential (e.g., tutoring, diagnostics) balances his critique, showing nuanced thinking.
Intuitive Appeal: The “excellence without effort” metaphor resonates, making the argument accessible and persuasive for a general audience.
Weaknesses
Limited Evidence: Reliance on a single, small-scale, non-peer-reviewed study weakens the empirical grounding, as broader data or longitudinal studies are absent.
Overgeneralization: The claim risks overstating AI’s negative impact by not exploring contexts where AI enhances critical thinking (e.g., structured prompting).
Lack of Actionable Solutions: While identifying the problem, Brooks offers no specific strategies for educators to mitigate AI’s risks, limiting practical utility.
Implications for Strategic Leadership
Educational Strategy: Leaders must balance AI’s efficiency with fostering critical thinking, integrating tools like AI tutors while emphasizing effortful learning.
Curriculum Development: Military education (e.g., CGSC) should incorporate AI literacy, teaching officers to use AI as a complement to, not a substitute for, strategic reasoning.
Policy Considerations: Develop guidelines to regulate AI use in education, ensuring it supports cognitive development rather than undermining it.
Recommendations
Enhance Evidence: Future arguments should include peer-reviewed, large-scale studies to strengthen claims about AI’s cognitive impacts.
Propose Solutions: Offer practical strategies, such as structured AI use (e.g., guided prompting) or critical thinking exercises, to balance benefits and risks.
Engage Stakeholders: Facilitate Faculty Development Program (FDP) discussions to integrate AI literacy into curricula, aligning with strategic leadership goals.
Conclusion
Brooks’ op-ed effectively highlights the risk of AI diminishing critical thinking in education through a compelling metaphor but is weakened by limited evidence and lack of actionable solutions. For CGSC leaders, the argument underscores the need to integrate AI thoughtfully, ensuring it augments rather than replaces cognitive effort, preparing officers for complex, VUCA-driven environments.
Dr Ken Long
Associate Professor
Department for Sustainment and Force Management (DSFM)
U.S. Army Command and General Staff School
Office 913-684-2925
DSN:552-2925
Rm 2180, Lewis & Clark Bkdg
kenneth.e.long20.civ@army.mil
I love learning leadership perspectives being a current BN CDR and starting my own Substack - the army is going through unprecedented changes and new growth - I want to maintain my edge with how our leaders interact with these changes.
It is interesting that as of today, the poll presents an even 20% split between each item.
So far this not as helpful in determining the direction of content. It does however provide insight on how diverse the Hardo community is.
In thinking about the 80/20 rule, I am curious about what <80% would agree on what is not listed as a polled topic item.
The objective of identifying topics of overwhelming specific interest unintentionally shows how broad and wide ranging content can get without losing any specific 20%.
This is a good thing, in my opinion.
I marked history items, but would also like to see updates on Army publications.
Here’s to The Harding Project!
To invigorate Army discourse, I would prefer a focus on ongoing debates and highlighting articles from the various professional journals that exemplify those debates. If posting historical pieces, they should center on previous examples of how writing contributed to change in the Army. I would really like to stay away from senior leader pieces or doctrine explanations as those tend to straitjacket discourse.