AI (and) education: Convergences between Chinese and European pedagogical practices

Summary

This discussion, organized by the Diplo Foundation, explored the convergences and differences between Chinese and Western educational systems in the context of artificial intelligence integration. The session was prompted by the emergence of DeepSeek AI and questions about how different cultural and philosophical traditions influence approaches to education and technology. Jovan Kurbalija from Diplo Foundation and Professor Hao Liu from Beijing Institute of Technology led the conversation, with Norman Sze from Deloitte joining remotely to provide industry perspective.

Professor Liu presented Beijing Institute of Technology’s approach to “intelligent education,” emphasizing human-centered learning that integrates five dimensions: space, knowledge, time, students, and teachers. He described their flexible academic system and efforts to move from traditional force-feeding education to more enlightening and innovative approaches. Norman Sze highlighted how AI is transforming professional consulting work, noting that tasks previously requiring weeks now take days, but emphasized that this shifts rather than eliminates human roles toward strategic insight and creativity.

The central question addressed was whether universities and professors remain necessary in an AI-dominated future. Student participants from various countries provided thoughtful responses, generally agreeing that educators remain essential but must evolve their roles. Key arguments included AI’s current limitations in symbolic interpretation and contextual reasoning, the importance of human emotional intelligence and mentorship, and the irreplaceable value of peer-to-peer learning and dialectical exchange.

Participants emphasized that professors should transition from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side,” focusing on coaching, critical thinking development, and helping students learn how to learn rather than merely transmitting knowledge. The discussion concluded that while professors have a secure future, they must fundamentally change their teaching approaches to remain relevant in an AI-enhanced educational landscape.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **East-West Educational Philosophy Convergence**: The discussion explored differences and similarities between Chinese educational systems (rooted in Confucian traditions) and Western/European approaches (emphasizing critical thinking and creativity), with speakers examining how these philosophical foundations influence AI development and educational practices.

– **The Future Role of Universities and Professors in the AI Era**: A central debate focused on whether educational institutions and teachers will remain necessary as AI becomes more capable, with participants ultimately concluding that while roles must evolve, human educators remain essential for coaching, emotional support, and facilitating meaningful human interaction.

– **AI as Educational Tool vs. Replacement**: Participants discussed how AI should be integrated into education – not as a replacement for human learning but as a tool that requires new pedagogical approaches, emphasizing the need for students to develop critical thinking skills to evaluate AI outputs rather than passively accept them.

– **Transformation of Learning Methods and Assessment**: The conversation addressed how traditional educational practices like essay writing, memorization, and fixed-duration degree programs need to be reimagined in an AI-enhanced world, with suggestions for more flexible, competency-based systems and apprenticeship-style learning.

– **Development of Human-Centered Skills**: Speakers emphasized the growing importance of uniquely human capabilities such as creativity, ethical judgment, emotional intelligence, collaboration, and the ability to ask the right questions – skills that AI cannot replicate and that become more valuable in an AI-augmented world.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aimed to explore how educational systems should adapt to the AI revolution, particularly examining the cultural and philosophical differences between Eastern and Western approaches to education. The session sought to identify what can be learned from both traditions to create more effective AI-integrated educational models that prepare students for an AI-enhanced future while preserving essential human elements of learning.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintained a collaborative and optimistic tone throughout, characterized by intellectual curiosity and constructive dialogue. Participants approached the topic with both excitement about AI’s potential and thoughtful concern about preserving human values in education. The tone was respectful of different cultural perspectives and remained consistently forward-looking, with speakers viewing AI as an opportunity for educational transformation rather than a threat. The interactive format encouraged open participation from students and professionals alike, creating an atmosphere of shared learning and mutual respect across cultural and generational boundaries.

Speakers

**Speakers from the provided list:**

– **Jovan Kurbalija** – Director of Diplo Foundation, Professor at the College of Europe, works on interplay between technology and diplomacy, focusing on how AI and digital technologies impact diplomacy

– **Hao Liu** – Professor at Beijing Institute of Technology (BIT), involved in intelligent education initiatives and AI-augmented education

– **Norman Sze** – Former Chair of Deloitte China, Academician at Hong Kong University, Emirates Partner of Deloitte, has experience in professional service and consulting industry

– **Donis Sadushaj** – From ITU (International Telecommunication Union), organizer of AI for Good Summit, managing academic member of ITU

– **Audience** – Multiple audience members including:

– Rui Yang from Singapore

– Jingjing – PhD student in law from Beijing Institute of Technology

– Babakar from Senegal, working in edtech

– Bao Zhenzhen – PhD student from BIT

– Ben – Student from University of Amsterdam, represents 40,000 students at his university and students at Epicure University Alliance

– Kong Miao-Ting – Postgraduate from BIT

**Additional speakers:**

– **Zhang Jun** – Professor mentioned as unable to join the session, works on AI and education

– **Zhang Ning** – Professor, former Secretary General for the Chinese Scholarship Council, supported Chinese students studying abroad and international students studying in China

# East-West Educational Convergence in the AI Era: A Cross-Cultural Dialogue

## Executive Summary

This discussion, organized by the Diplo Foundation, brought together educators, industry professionals, and students from diverse cultural backgrounds to explore how Chinese and Western educational systems are adapting to artificial intelligence integration. The conversation was prompted by recent AI developments, including DeepSeek AI, and broader questions about how different cultural traditions influence approaches to education and technology.

The session featured Jovan Kurbalija from the Diplo Foundation, Professor Hao Liu from Beijing Institute of Technology, Norman Sze from Deloitte China, and Donis Sadushaj from the International Telecommunication Union, alongside active participation from students representing Singapore, China, the Netherlands, and other countries. The discussion maintained a collaborative tone throughout, characterized by constructive dialogue across cultural and generational boundaries.

## Key Participants and Their Contributions

**Professor Hao Liu** (Beijing Institute of Technology) presented his institution’s approach to “intelligent education,” emphasizing human-centered learning that integrates five dimensions: space, knowledge, time, students, and teachers. He described efforts to transition from traditional “force-feeding” education models to more innovative approaches that foster creativity and critical thinking.

**Norman Sze** (former Chair of Deloitte China) provided industry perspective on AI’s impact on professional work, noting how consulting tasks that previously required six weeks now take 1-2 days. He emphasized that this shifts rather than eliminates human roles toward strategic insight and creativity.

**Donis Sadushaj** (ITU, organizer of AI for Good Summit) contributed insights on global AI coordination and maintaining human elements in AI-augmented systems.

**Jovan Kurbalija** facilitated the discussion, drawing connections between different cultural approaches to education and their implications for AI integration.

## Central Questions and Themes

### Will Universities and Professors Remain Necessary?

The discussion’s central question addressed whether educational institutions remain relevant in an AI-dominated future. Student participants provided particularly insightful perspectives, generally agreeing that educators remain essential but must evolve significantly.

Key arguments for continued relevance included:

– AI’s current limitations in symbolic interpretation and contextual reasoning

– The irreplaceable importance of human emotional intelligence and mentorship

– The unique value of peer-to-peer learning and collaborative exchange

– The need for meaning-making through human connection

As one student, Ben from the University of Amsterdam, bluntly stated: “I don’t care about ChatGPT, it’s not human.” This captured an essential truth about human motivation and engagement in learning.

### Cultural Approaches to Learning

The discussion explored differences between Chinese educational systems, rooted in Confucian traditions, and Western approaches that emphasize critical thinking and creativity. Norman Sze provided nuanced analysis of how Chinese education excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivation but sometimes limits creativity due to exam-oriented systems, while European education emphasizes student-centered pedagogy that nurtures curiosity and innovation.

Kurbalija highlighted the historical exchange of ideas between Europe and China, suggesting that understanding different cultural approaches could inform better AI integration strategies. He emphasized how Confucian emphasis on procedures and learning processes should complement rather than be replaced by modern efficiency-focused approaches.

### The Role of Struggle and Mistakes in Learning

Several students made insightful contributions about the irreplaceable value of making mistakes and experiencing struggle. Rui Yang from Singapore expressed concerns that AI assistance might prevent students from developing crucial skills that come from struggling through problems independently, noting that “true experimentation, true making mistakes” builds creativity and resilience.

Jingjing, a PhD student from Beijing Institute of Technology, reinforced this point: “Making mistake is very important in our life to interact with others and to become myself… making mistake is also important and AI can’t give us this opportunity.”

## Areas of Strong Consensus

### Transformation Rather Than Replacement

All speakers agreed that while universities and teachers remain essential, they must undergo significant transformation. The consensus emerged that educators should shift from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators, focusing on developing human capabilities that complement rather than compete with AI.

Professor Liu advocated for focusing on capacity building in five key areas: learning, execution, communication, leadership, and judgment-making. Norman Sze emphasized the transition to coaching roles that help students navigate information effectively and connect learning to real-world applications.

### Critical Thinking and Human-Centered Skills

There was strong alignment on the importance of developing critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment as essential competencies that AI cannot replace. Norman Sze outlined how AI literacy must include three core areas: critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, creative collaboration skills, and ethical awareness of AI’s societal impacts.

### AI as Complementary Tool

Participants reached consensus that AI should be integrated as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human education. Professor Liu described how AI represents a paradigm shift requiring fundamental changes in educational approaches, moving from knowledge transmission to human-centered, integrative learning while preserving essential human elements.

## Implementation Challenges and Considerations

### Assessment and Academic Integrity

The discussion revealed practical challenges around maintaining academic integrity while encouraging ethical AI use. Kurbalija posed the fundamental question of how to prevent students from using AI inappropriately for assignments while simultaneously encouraging AI literacy development.

This prompted suggestions for alternative assessment methods, including replacing traditional essay writing with dialectical discussions and interactive formats that AI cannot replicate.

### Flexible Learning Systems

Professor Liu shared examples of how Beijing Institute of Technology is implementing flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces, including consideration of competency-based progression rather than fixed-duration programs.

However, questions remain about balancing individual progression with collaborative learning experiences and maintaining the intrinsic value of the learning process itself.

## Future Considerations

### Preparing for Rapid Change

An audience member raised the prospect of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) arriving within months or years, challenging participants to consider how current educational discussions would relate to such fundamental transformation. This intervention added urgency while highlighting the uncertainty of preparing for unknown futures.

### Cross-Cultural Learning Opportunities

The discussion revealed valuable opportunities for synthesis between Chinese and Western educational approaches. The combination of Chinese strengths in knowledge transmission and character cultivation with Western emphasis on creativity and critical thinking could inform innovative AI integration strategies.

## Key Takeaways

The session achieved remarkable consensus on fundamental principles while revealing important implementation nuances:

1. **Universities and teachers remain essential** but must transform from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators

2. **Human-centered skills** like critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment cannot be replaced by AI

3. **AI should complement rather than replace** human education, enhancing rather than eliminating human roles

4. **Cross-cultural learning** between Eastern and Western educational traditions can inform better AI integration

5. **The learning process itself has value** beyond efficient outcomes, including the importance of struggle and mistakes

6. **Flexible, competency-based systems** may be needed while preserving collaborative learning experiences

The discussion demonstrated that education’s future lies not in choosing between human and artificial intelligence, but in thoughtfully integrating both to create learning experiences that develop uniquely human capabilities while leveraging technological tools effectively. This balanced approach, informed by diverse cultural perspectives, offers a promising foundation for navigating educational challenges in the AI era.

Plans for continued dialogue include follow-up sessions on AI, governance, education, and philosophy, reflecting participants’ commitment to ongoing cross-cultural collaboration on these critical challenges.

Jovan Kurbalija: Good afternoon. Welcome to our session. My name is Jovan Kurbalija. I’m director of Diplo Foundation. And there is a short history of this session. It was a discussion between Wu Hao and myself on the convergences and differences between Chinese educational system and, let’s say, Western or European educational systems. I was triggered to this topic by the question of the deep seek and the logic behind deep seek. Deep seek moment on 20th of January was important not only because of the new platform, new LLM, but it introduced different way of thinking and different way of programming. Therefore, I got curious. And then we were discussing it. And we said, OK, why not organize the session with so many young people and some colleagues that we have been knowing for each other and discuss what are these differences, convergences, what we can learn from each other. Because you, especially younger colleagues, you will be interacting with your colleagues from the United States, Europe. Europeans and Americans will interact with their Chinese colleagues. And what are these deeper, probably cultural influences related to the deeper Confucianism or, let’s say, ancient Greek tradition in Europe with Aristotle, Plato, and other thinkers? Are these differences noticeable? Are they important? How should we deal with them? And ultimately, how should we prepare our educational system for changes ahead of us? Basically, changes triggered by use of artificial intelligence. We’ll ask you later on if you are using AI a lot for writing your essays. You can give us honest answers. but that’s an interesting issue of the use of AI in the teaching process. That would be more or less my three minutes of setting the stage, a bit of history, and the idea is what we agreed with, how to have a very interactive discussion today and to hear from you about this critical issue for our future, for your future as young people, our future

Hao Liu: a bit older, but also future of our societies. I think you may give a short, a brief introduction of the Diplo because not everyone is very familiar with the Diplo. It’s a good time to let them know more about the Diplo. And then I will take the floor and after that I will let Norman give his presentation together with the introduction of his team. I thought that everybody at Beijing Institute of Technology knows everything about Diplo. We also have

Jovan Kurbalija: some students from the other universities of China. No, I’m joking, I’m joking. Okay, Diplo Foundation works on interplay between technology and diplomacy, how AI and digital technologies are impacting diplomacy and vice versa. And we do it by providing training, by providing also research, and by providing development of tools, concrete tools. If you go to our website, www.diplomacy.edu, you can find many agents on multilateral diplomacy. I think on Confucius, on Dostoyevsky, on Shakespeare and other things. And you can start interacting and seeing it. Therefore, this is the main idea, how to use AI in order to improve diplomacy, but also philosophy, and to make ultimately a better world, where we can negotiate and more hear to each other, listen to each other, than to have a conflict, tensions and fights, which unfortunately are not missing in the modern world. Therefore, this is the key idea, how to use technology to improve diplomacy, concretely, how to use artificial intelligence in the exercise. Thank you, Juven.

Hao Liu: And today we have Juven, Norman, myself, and we also have a professor, Zhang Jun, even he cannot join us. and AI augmented education. I think both of them should be focused on the mind enlightening. It is not to tell you to gather skills to do some very boring work. It is, well, with AI, compared with previous version of tools education, it will be not only driving force. It will be a potential pre-liberalization. It will be the really game changer for the education. Well, what characters AI education will have? It is first driven by the changing dynamics and the new trends. Compared with the left, that the traditional education, intelligent education will be more focused on the human. So we put the student in the center and we will integrate the space. That is a three dimension, together with the knowledge and the time. The five dimensions needed to be well integrated to serve the people. So intelligent education is the new version of a human-centered education. So with such idea, we are more focused on not the knowledge points, not just isolated knowledge. We are putting the knowledge to be well integrated so the chemical change will happen. And not only focus on the curriculum, your major, the discipline. Roles are created by the people. We need to consider that from a knowledge domains. So the knowledge needed to be well connected. They needed to be well implemented by the human creature. So there are, as I mentioned, there are five dimension education. All of them needed to be, will be changed by the science and technology. Will be changed with a new concept and will be changed with the interaction between the professor and the student. So we are also introducing the gaming practice to make that to be more protective and effective than the traditional education. We changed that in BIT to introduce a flexible academic system. So now we are working on the seven years of PhD. And it is not just only for a small group of people. We consider if that we have a successful practice, we wanted to let more people spend less time, but to be super competent in the job market. So with such intelligent education, we are changing the force-feeding, constrained, isolated education to be enlightening, to be innovative and integrative. So such a practice is not happening just within one or three years. It had happened in the past three decades with three generations of leaders, the three presidents of the university, which are from 19, I think that started from 1995 to 2025. Three decades past, we are working all the time for the evolving of this practical, of this intelligent education. With such a practice, our students not only win in the competition. They are more innovative. They are also working on entrepreneurship, not only the competition, innovation, entrepreneurship. And we also set up a school of global governance, providing the multidisciplinary education is an integration of management and the law. So they are working on the science, diplomacy, and the governance. Next week, we will come to Geneva again, and we also have one session will be provided by the diplo. So in the BIT, we built up the AI brain for the education system. We have a series of online digitalized courses, and we built our supercomputer system to support that. We are not keeping everything only in BIT. We are going with higher education, institute, association, and the other platform to circulate, to share with our counterpart. So we consider that BIT is just one source of the Chinese intelligent education. So that is why we want to share our practice, a lesson we have learned, so that we may get your comments, your inspiration. you may also take whatever successful experience from BIT. That is the end of the presentation from my side, and now I would like give the floor to our colleague, Norman. Norman was a former chair of Deloitte China, and he’s also the academician in the Hong Kong University, and he’s Emirates partner of Deloitte. But today, he wanted to share his experience

Jovan Kurbalija: because he had experience in the education system, in the practicing, in the industry. And his background is kinds of connection of Europe and China. So it’s also connection between the industry and the education. So Norman, the floor is yours. Unfortunately, he can only join us remotely. Thank you, Professor Liu.

Norman Sze: Thank you for introduction. It’s my honor to join this forum and share insight from perspective of professional service and consulting industry. Of course, AI already shaping how we work, but in turn, we should think about how the market, how the society, how the industry link to the education. Now, let me start first with a concrete example from Deloitte. A decade ago, a strategic consulting project required team of consultants spending six weeks on data collection and analysis. Today, AI tools actually accomplish the same task in one or two days. This isn’t about replacing consultants, but it’s about shifting the roles. It’s also rely on more senior experts to provide strategic insight while AI handles routine analysis. This paradigm shift is spreading across industries. As educators, we must ask, how do we prepare students for workforce where AI augments, but it doesn’t replace human creativity, ethics, and critical judgment? The answer slides if we imagine education through a global lens. I think it’s about the alignment between the industry and also the education. So, let’s close from the World Economic Forum. that AI literacy must transcend traditional IT skills. It’s about cultivating three perspectives. Critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, not just accept them. Creative collaboration to harness AI for meaningful problem solving, and also ethical awareness to navigate AI social impacts. This mirrors our dynamic in business. We embrace AI efficiency while fearing unforeseen risk, and education must equip learners to balance these imperatives. So from China education philosophy, which I also received quite a couple from Hong Kong. So the model is more rooted in Confucian philosophy, excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivations. It’s emphasized on foundation skills as a produced generation of students with strong quantitative skills. However, this tradition shaped by exam-oriented systems has sometimes cyanide creativities and independent thinking. So thankfully, now, which Professor just mentioned, is actively forming policy, more now prioritizing innovation over memorizations. So pushing the schools to integrate AI to foster critical inquiries. From new perspective, which I also serve, quite a few European clients, thrice in the heuristic student-centered pedagogy. Curriculum, encourage classroom-based and crowd-based learnings into disciplinary projects, nurturing curiosity and creativities. Like for example, Historia’s top PI essay rankings in creativity thinking reflect these echoes. And of course, the new AI literacy framework underscores the focus on teaching students to critique AI, collaborate with ethically and question its societal role and model tools in decades of critical thinking training. So what are doing, what they’re doing? So my observation is that from China, some schools already integrates AI cross-teachings from lesson learning, planning, assessments, and also the prime students start to engage AI literacy activities, but the high schools is now. to tackle the interdisciplinary projects, exploring the AI in the life-saving labs. Of course, from New York, we see the observation like Estonia’s national AI-led programs grants 50,000 students and 5,000 teachers free access to cutting-edge AI tools. This co-plays a goal is to replace, memorize, repeat, apply with more high-ordered skills for focus on the deep thinking and non-critical compliance. So what I’m seeing from a global one, for education industry, a few things we need to reconfirm this. We need to integrate algorithmic thinking, data literacy, and machine learning basics. And also, we need to develop holistic skills development, not just the coding prompt engineering, but more human strengths like empathic, empathy, ethical judgment, and teamwork. These are all irreplaceable in AI-driven world. So the China scale and policy execution complement your expertise in critical pedagogy. Okay, so by collaborating on AI literacies, curriculum, teacher training, and ethical guidelines, I believe, I personally believe that we can craft an educational model that blends Eastern rigor and Western innovation. So in closing, AI is not a threat, but a catalyst. Our task, especially from educator, is to ensure education and empower students to be AI-moral stewards and creative architects, not passive users. So today, and I’m confident that China and Europe can lead this transformation for the next generation and the world. Oh, this is my short observations. Also, Professor Liu, thank you.

Hao Liu: Thank you, Norman. Yuvin, shall we start through the question to our student, or we may ask whether they have any comments for a presentation from Norman and Mr. Zhang? You may decide.

Jovan Kurbalija: Definitely, just building on one comment, let’s say, thinking conveyor belt across Euro-Asia. There was one moment which is very important. In 1984, when- and Deng Xiaoping started his reform. One of the most translated book and the publish was Max Weber’s book on Protestantism and Capitalism. Explaining the value basis of the capitalism, it was very popular book for thinkers and policy makers. Therefore, that conveyor belt between Europe and China has been moving both ways. And I think that’s what we just heard is important to see how we can make that conveyor belt function today. Since Marco Polo, via Weber and other things, ideas were moving, not only goods, not only silk, but also ideas. How to organize society, how to learn, how to develop dynamics. That is the context. If we can go in this short session to a bit of gist on the main findings of this conveyor belt. What is it today? How to make critical thinking? Should we learn by heart? Does it make sense to write essays today when AI can generate good essays? Should we drop the narratives, which are very important? How to develop virtue, which is one of the important parts of Confucian legacy. And these are many issues which could sound abstract, but they are boiling down to the way how we write the code, how we interact, and how we develop companies and society. That’s just, let’s say, trigger for you to think about that conveyor belt, which is going across Eurasian space for centuries, and which is now accelerating between ideas converging. Well, I guess. Okay. Can I have a question?

Hao Liu: Yes, we open the floor, first of all, the comments, and then we will serve you with challenging questions. If you have any comments, you don’t feel shy. And today we are also quite lucky to have Professor Zhang Ning. who was a former Secretary General for the Chinese Scholarship Council. He supported so many Chinese students to study abroad and also for the international students to study in China. Thank you so much for all of your contribution today. Also bring a group of students to join our discussions. Thank you, you are more than welcome and we will be very happy to have your insightful comments or the closing remarks later. So if we don’t have any comments right now, we would like to raise questions to let our students to answer the question. I see the room is dominating by the young generation. This is really nice. So, Yuvin, you may kick the floor to ask some questions. Because when I teaching in the university,

Jovan Kurbalija: all the time I raising questions, so- We have hands over there, but you think on a question. Do we need teachers and universities? Yes, it’s a, you know why I’m not asking that question. And don’t answer with yes or no. Give us the reason for yes, hopefully, and also reasons for no, if you find it. But we have question over there, yeah. Thank you very much.

Audience: I have a quick question, I guess, to the panels and the presenters. I think a lot of the comments in my view relate to probably the use of artificial intelligence as we know it today. Depending on who you listen to or speak to, artificial general intelligence, AGI may be here in a number of months, maybe two, three, four, five years. Looking at what scholars and scientists say about artificial general intelligence, this will completely change how we interact as humans. humanity. We do not know what that may look like. But my question is, how do the comments that have been shared, the very valuable comments that have been shared by the panelists, relate to the fact that we may have AGI with us in the next couple of months or midterm future? How would that relate to how we continue to discuss on education and learning? Thank you.

Hao Liu: Yes, thank you so much for the question. This question is quite well connected with the question from you, is that whether we still need a professor or the teachers in the school or the university. So if AI can play that role better than me, and I think we also have some professors, and I got the microphone from my colleague, a professor. So we would be very happy to get the answers, opinions, perspective from our students.

Jovan Kurbalija: Maybe just a quick comment. AGI is a possibility and there are, as you know, many discussions, but what I’m seeing, we will have even bigger challenges ahead of us. But today we have a challenge. I’m professor at the College of Europe. How can I ensure that my students are not using AI for drafting their essays? And on the contrary, I insist that they use AI, because to ask them not to use the AI would be unethical. That’s basically the world. But how to change education system? Do we need professors? Do we need the university? And that’s a challenging question. Maybe we can hear a few quick comments on this question. Do we need university and professors? You have the answer.

Audience: Hi, everyone. My name is Rui Yang. I’m from Singapore. I just have a more fundamental question about the role of education and university. I think you’d mentioned a lot in the presentation about the role of AI in… and fostering critical thinking. But I think there are other softer skill sets like creativity or resilience that you want to imbue in university students. And I think the role of AI providing prompts, this might take away from true experimentation, true making mistakes, that you can sort of build the strength of becoming more creative or becoming more resilient. So I do think that perhaps I’m not sure about the use of AI in some of these contexts, whether it’s actually, you know, preventing sort of the building of some of these more softer skill sets that would also be important in the workforce, yeah.

Jovan Kurbalija: Therefore, you’re not, you’re posing the question and not answering our question if we need professor. Rhetorical question. Yeah, good. Okay, I think that’s a very vital point. My argument is, yes, we can, but our educational system has to be, pedagogy has to be profoundly changed. For example, at Diplo, we are using AI apprenticeship. You know, if you think about grand wall pyramids, all artifacts in the history of the humanity that were developed, they’re developed not by engineers, they were developed by apprentice and masters, students who are learning by doing. And I think we have to get back to that paradigm of learning AI by developing AI. And in that context, by engaging with AI, asking questions, probing, commenting on the answers, checking the logic of the large language models, we can sharpen our thinking on the higher level, not anymore just by memorizing things, but engaging with somebody who is very knowledgeable on the other side, with the help of professors. Hopefully there will be a need for the university.

Norman Sze: These are questions actually from, as I’m a consultant, especially very often that we compare between the professors. and trained consultants. The difference is to connect in the world, the real world, what it’s like. So the professor roles in the past is more to lecturing, to share the knowledge, but now it’s more to connect the world, to connect the people, and also to coach in a way to help the student to think in different ways, and to really to ask the right questions, to help them to stimulate, how even to leverage the AI or the other tools. So this is where we see that, especially when now I’m the coach of a lot of startup companies and entrepreneurs, and I found it’s the challenges, the even of the AI is still not able to just to change the world. The world is always changing and changing. So how to work on this part, and this is exactly the role of professors, they need to upgrade themselves, not just lecturing the past knowledge, but also to help them to ask questions linked to the AI, the real world, and the students. And this is where I see the value of the professors in the future.

Audience: Jingjing, you can take the floor. Hello, hello, my name is Jingjing, and I come from Beijing Institute of Technology. I’m a PhD student in law, and I have two reason to explain why the teachers or the university cannot be replaced by AI. And the first reason is, I’m sorry, the first reason is in the technological, existing evidence has shown that AI have three major shortcomings, and the one is the symbolic interpretation. The second is combinatorial reasoning, and the third is the application of contextual rules. And these limitations in showing us that the AI still falls short of human, and this give us opportunity to effectively acquire new skills more brilliant than the AI. So I think this is the one reason why the university or the professors cannot be replaced by AI. And the second reason is that I think the education, or the role education is not only to teach how to correct knowledge, but also give us the opportunity to make mistake. I think make mistake is very important in our life to interact with others and to become myself. So I think this is the place that AI cannot place a performance too well, because it has organized the system, the knowledge system, and it shortened the experience or the process that we thinking. So in the second reason is making mistake is also important and AI can’t give us this opportunity. And this is my opinion. Thank you.

Hao Liu: Okay, thank you. Don’t tell me that you want all of the professors

Audience: to quit our job. So far we are doing well. I won’t be doing that. So hello everyone. My name is Babakar. I’m from Senegal. I’m in edtech. So we are providing education for people in remote areas. And when it’s done, we have that insight there. Okay, they have the information now, but the key insight is they don’t know how to use it. So that’s why I’m saying the role of the teacher now will be changing because you’ll have to teach them how to learn because that’s the key. People are having access to a lot of information right now. Information is accessible everywhere. But now the key skills is like, okay, is it how to treat it, how to find, how to look for it, how to have the right data. And I really like the use of the word coach because the professor will be now a coach to help the student to. know how to learn, how to use the data to actually provide with, I mean, how can I say it? Outcomes, good outcomes. And yeah, you are still needed.

Hao Liu: OK, thank you. I see. OK. OK.

Audience: Hello, everyone. My name is Bao Zhenzhen. I’m also the PhD student of BIT. In my education before, there is student AI tools. So I think maybe at first, I can understand the feelings of the teachers. And also, I can have the understanding with the students. And also, during my TA experience at BIT, I found there is a point that there is a shift or switch in the thoughts of the students. They put the emphasis on the efficiency instead of the knowledge storage, because they have a lot of classes. It is a fact. So I think maybe there is a challenge for universities or teachers to think how to do or modify the training program, especially for the undergraduates. And I think the traditional program is not, I think, more good for the students or something else. So I think it’s quite a challenge. But I still think teachers play a very important role in the education, because the AI tools now, they can’t give the lead to the students. It’s more like answer and question. But teachers could give their suggestions in the daily life and face-to-face. So that’s my opinion. Thank you.

Hao Liu: Thank you, and we give the floor to that gentleman.

Audience: I think there are two dimensions to answer this question straight on. One is, is it the? the right time to ask this question. And AI has not sunk in with the intensity, which we feel that there should be enough of intensity among the large communities or so, so that they can evaluate what are the likely advantages or disadvantages or so. So I would say, I think this is a little premature. Maybe we have to allow a few years. The second part is, and that’s more a personal opinion. I think with the AI, because it is much more sharing of knowledge in a non-guided way, peer-to-peer learning is likely to become center stage, rather than somebody as a guide and somebody being taught. And probably the role of teachers or professors may evolve more as evaluators or assessors, rather than the facilitators to get knowledge or the competence. That’s more a personal opinion.

Jovan Kurbalija: Would you summarize it that teachers are moving from the sage on the stage to the guide on the side? It’s very difficult to react to such strong questions.

Audience: I think it is much more to see, put yourself, put the mindset as if you are already in 2035 or 2040, how education by that time, AI applications, everything would have matured. So people will not look forward to a classroom or classroom type of setting. I think they will reach out everywhere. Even now, if you see the knowledge gathering is not really waiting for somebody to tell you. You go to internet, your Wikipedia, this, that, this thing, and you really collect that information. And that’s likely to increase a lot. And that time it will be competence-based, this thing. And since the mic is with me, I want to pose one, not a question, but one thing to consider. If you see most of the universities. have defined a certain duration for learning, you must spend three years to take this examination to qualify. Students have a different pace of learning. I think some will learn in six months what the other may not be able to learn in nine months or so. With this AI kind of a, what you call as an acceleration, there will be a time when the universities will have to revisit, should they really prescribe a duration or should they prescribe a set of competencies to be really evaluated whether a person qualifies for that degree or not.

Hao Liu: Before I move on, I wanted to share my comments. In the BIT, we are introducing the flexible academic system. We try to reduce or make that to be flexible because I agree with you, different students may have a different pace of learning. So some people may run faster. That’s why we let them to wait. But we also need to consider that they need also to learn how to collaborate, how to play the team game. Yes, you are running fast, but you are working in the community. So you needed to know how to working together with the other people. So that’s why we will keep, not only let them, okay, they may finish in two or three years for the PhD, but what I can tell you that in the history, we do have people, they go directly for the PhD degree. They finish that in a very short period of time, which is even unbelievable in the current high education system. If we, rows of predecessors make that happen in the history, why? We have hesitation in the university, reject the application of some faster runners to have that PhD degree earlier. So for me, I’m even considering in the SGG, we are considering if the university will approve and we don’t have big regulation barriers, we are considering the student that’s not necessary to attend. attend the lecture or the courses. They may go directly for the examination. If you can finish the examination, whether it’s oral or in written, you demonstrate that you are competent for that part already. You don’t need to attend the lecture anymore. We are keeping good quality assurance, but we are reducing, we are not letting the student waste their time. So this is what we want to bring. And I’m also very happy with the idea from Norman. The professors are sometime more coaching, but we will invite Norman to give, to share his ideas later. And we gave the floor to this young gentleman first.

Audience: Hello? It works, cool. Hi, my name is Ben. I am a student from the University of Amsterdam. I’m on the side of that. I also represent 40,000 students of my university. We good? All right, cool. I also represent the students of my university at the Epicure University Alliance. So to your question of whether universities will be necessary or not, my answer is going to be quite close to what you just mentioned. Yes, but it needs to be reformed. Question is what should universities be for? Now, currently we’re seeing some changes already happening. If you look at, for example, the United States, where you have Palantir pulling students, in like high school students into their company, instead of letting them go into university first, we can see that in some sectors. So for example, anything that has to do with technology, university might become less relevant education-wise. That’s a prediction of mine. I’m not saying that’s going to happen, but I do think it is. But I myself, I’m from the humanities and social sciences. So honestly, you all probably know way better than I, than me, what’s going to happen with that. But speaking for the humanities and social sciences, I believe that writing essays, for example. or has a really practical educational purpose, which is you teach students how to make an argument, right? That’s what the essay is for. Even in your field, I believe it’s, you’re trying to convince others of what you just found, your invention. Now, perhaps it’s true that essays indeed can be written now by Chadjipiti or DeepSeek, but this means that we should be looking for another way to do the same thing, to make an argument, to learn how to make an argument. And I believe that we can do that through means of dialectics, for example. And this very space, I believe it reflects that. You just ask the question, people are responding. People ask different questions to other people. And that’s the beauty of a university, isn’t it? Just, you know, speaking. Chat GPT can’t do that. Like, Chat Gpt, you can ask it, you know, you can write a prompt, say, hey, I’m a student, teach me something, ask me a question, I’m gonna argue to you why I am right, or why I’m confused. That’s not gonna work, because I don’t care about Chadjipiti, it’s not human. So eventually, what this comes down to, I believe, is, you know, meaning making. It’s because through human interaction, we make meaning. And that’s why I’m responding to you right now, and I wouldn’t be responding to Chadjipiti, and that’s why this whole thing is happening. And that’s the beauty of it, I believe. Thank you.

Jovan Kurbalija: Lovely, lovely point. Just one idea for, especially our colleagues from China. One in the Confucius underlying theme is basically rituals or procedures, I’m simplifying it, including in the learning process. Therefore, this element of efficiency, pass exam, do something, which is now obsession of the modernity, which is very tricky, should be complemented, but bit of Confucius thinking where you have a procedures and routine. regardless, this is a key, regardless the outcome. Which means that you will have a process of writing essays. I completely agree, developing narrative arguments is critical, but maybe not necessarily that you produce essays and send to professor, which a GPT of deep sea can do, but to have a process through which you are developing narratives. This is just idea to borrow a bit of thinkers, especially Confucius, and to think of this procedural-based narrative and developing essays, for example, very concretely speaking. Just as an idea for the, and I agree, it’s lovely exchange and that cannot be replaced by AI or anything else.

Hao Liu: Yes, before we give the floor to the young lady, Norman, whether you have any ideas you want to share, I assume you wanted to share something.

Norman Sze: Yes, yes, I think you just asked about the coaching, I think especially now, because when we look at this AI, the knowledge output, it’s challenging right now, is that whether our students or professors have the critical thinking to evaluate the AI outputs. And they also, and they seem to have to be more collaborative, especially in the world, now we call ecosystem. So it’s not just about output, but it’s also about how the use of AI, the knowledge, the outputs, how to really create the collaboration for meaningful problem-solvings. In addition, of course, ethical awareness. So the coaching skills are much important than others, especially, for example, now I’m working on a couple of these coaching for the startup companies, for the students when they will have a startup. So this is more, the roles of the professor, the knowledge, the shifting, not providing knowledge in the past, so technical knowledge, but more on the soft skills side that they need to work together with the students. I think that is where I’m seeing the changes of the roles and the context of the education.

Hao Liu: Thank you, Norman. You may take the floor.

Audience: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kong Miao-Ting, and I’m a postgraduate from BIT. And I also agree with the idea that the university, the professors are still necessary, even in the era of AI, because the way we engage with AI is by giving prompts or asking questions, but teachers, human teachers, can find or answer the questions that aren’t asked by the students. The human teachers can observe or find the subtle emotional changes of the students, like they are a flicker of confusion, or they are hesitation, all the sadness behind the students. So, but the AI can never find these subtle changes, but these subtle changes just showcase the fundamental lack of knowledge of the students. So this is very important, but this is a vital points of lack for the AI. Yeah, thank you.

Hao Liu: And before we move on to take any question or comments, I wanted to invite Doreen from ITU, who is the organizer for the whole event. He is also managing academic member of ITU. We have a good teamwork, and every year he’s receiving our students to the ITU, and based on your interaction with the university, with academic member of ITU, probably I know you have some insight you want to share. Please, Donis. Thank you. I’m not sure if you can hear me. Doesn’t have the light on.

Donis Sadushaj: So thanks a lot for the presentations, and thank you for welcoming ITU here. As you know, we are organizing the AI for Good Summit, so we want all the teachers to stay with us because we’re here for good. We don’t want any job losses, and it’s true, we welcome academia and the research institutions in the ITU, and everybody is welcome to interact with our work. Just a personal reflection, this is not the position of the ITU. On your question about teachers and students and universities, whether they should stay or not and be replaced by the AI, as a former student of, as a graduate in law and in diplomacy, I am very much in favor of the human touch. I cannot say that the AI should replace the professors and the teachers, because it’s all about the emotions. When you study law or if you ask somebody or if you ask AI to teach you the negotiations rules, if you’re a teacher or a trainer on negotiations, I don’t think AI can do that. If you are training a class or if you are training a group of professionals or a group of diplomats, you need a good negotiator and you don’t need Chad Chibiti or the deep seek. So AI, I personally, I see AI as a complimentary tool for the professors and the teachers and also the students, not to replace the human touch, but to help professors and students to facilitate their lives and not to replace them. So I think we cannot do anything without universities, same as ITU cannot do anything without the academia members. So thank you very much for your presentation today. This is very valuable. And also thank you to Norman for joining online. Very good insights. Thank you. Thank you, Donis.

Hao Liu: And I think it’s a time for the closing remarks. And before we take the time, we gave priority to Norman, whether you want to have any short closing remarks, please. Yes, we can take a, yes.

Norman Sze: Norman, Norman, please, okay, one minute. Sorry, sorry, a couple of observations. First of all, of course, we all agree that the professor can be inevitable, that you have the importance of such an existence of professors and teachers. Secondly, the roles of professors, as I said, it changed the roles and the perspectives and also I’m seeing this alignment between the industry needs and educations and how to really train the people which would meet the requirements. demand in the market, in the industry. So these are a few things that I see that is changing the application of AI in the industry and application of AI in the education industry. So that is where we need to be hard to view and also to integrate the whole ecosystems as a whole. And of course, it’s also leverage as I said, between the Europe and China, I think a lot of the leverage we can really work together to provide a more great framework for the education industry.

Hao Liu: Thank you so much, Jovan, please.

Jovan Kurbalija: Good news, professors will have a future. Bad news, they have to change yesterday, the way of teaching and the way of engagement. And I think that would be basically the gist of everything. Many open issues, how to write essays, coaching as a tool, apprenticeship that we use a lot at our system by learning by doing. But generally speaking, exciting time, especially for young people, where many given systems and approaches are challenged, where new approaches are not yet in the place and you will have a lot of chances to innovate, create and have fun. Thank you, I think in the last few minutes,

Hao Liu: I wanted to say that the professors are not teaching or not just circulating the knowledge, we are working on the capacity and the capability building. The following five capabilities, abilities are quite important for you. The ways that you know how to learn, how to executive, how to communicate, how to lead and how to make a judgment. We do have people that are hardworking, but they have a terrible life because they don’t know how to make the right judgment. Well, we also today we have only 45 minutes, we cannot accept more questions, more ideas. But tomorrow between two to 5pm, we will have one more event, we will discuss the AI and the governance, education and the philosophy. Well, for those of who does not have opportunity to register, you may contact us, we will try to know whether we can make that. possible. If you miss that opportunity, don’t worry, because in August, between August 7th to 17th, we will have the first-ever pilot AI philosophy caravan. We will spend 10 days in China, from a capital region, Beijing, and to Shanghai, Hangzhou, Jiaxing, and then to Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Zhuhai. So for that 10 days, we will travel and we will meet different people in China. We will talk about everything connected with AI. We have people from different parts of the world, have different cultural and philosophical backgrounds, and we hope to see you there. You can join us for more information. Our team is available. Thank you so much for your time to join us, to make this session to be your session, to make it really interactive, and I hope to see you during this week, and we can have a more enjoyable conversation later. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you, Norman. Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you.

Agreement points

Universities and teachers remain necessary but must fundamentally transform their roles and methods

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Donis Sadushaj
– Audience

Arguments

Professors should focus on capacity building in five key areas: learning, execution, communication, leadership, and judgment-making

Teachers must transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to coaches who help students learn how to learn and navigate information effectively

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

AI serves as a complementary tool that facilitates learning rather than replacing the essential human elements of education

Universities remain necessary because they provide human interaction, meaning-making, and collaborative learning that AI cannot replicate

Summary

All speakers agreed that while universities and teachers will continue to be essential, they must undergo significant transformation. The consensus is that educators should shift from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators, focusing on developing human capabilities that complement rather than compete with AI.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development | Human rights principles

AI should be integrated as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human education

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Donis Sadushaj

Arguments

AI represents a paradigm shift requiring fundamental changes in educational approaches, moving from knowledge transmission to human-centered, integrative learning

AI tools dramatically increase efficiency in professional work, requiring educators to prepare students for AI-augmented rather than AI-replaced roles

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

AI serves as a complementary tool that facilitates learning rather than replacing the essential human elements of education

Summary

There was strong consensus that AI should augment rather than replace human education. Speakers agreed that AI integration requires fundamental pedagogical changes while preserving essential human elements of learning and teaching.

Topics

Online education | Future of work | Human rights principles

Critical thinking and human-centered skills are essential in an AI-driven educational environment

Speakers

– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

AI literacy must include critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, creative collaboration, and ethical awareness of AI’s societal impacts

Education should focus on developing uniquely human strengths like empathy, ethical judgment, and teamwork that remain irreplaceable in an AI-driven world

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Summary

All speakers emphasized the critical importance of developing human-centered skills, particularly critical thinking, creativity, and ethical judgment, as essential competencies that AI cannot replace and that become more valuable in an AI-integrated world.

Topics

Online education | Human rights principles | Capacity development

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for flexible, personalized education systems that accommodate different learning paces while maintaining the importance of human guidance and collaborative learning. They both emphasize the coaching role of educators in helping students navigate AI-enhanced learning environments.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Teachers must transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to coaches who help students learn how to learn and navigate information effectively

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the value in different cultural approaches to education and advocate for learning from both Eastern and Western educational philosophies. They see potential in combining the strengths of both systems – Eastern foundational rigor with Western creativity and critical thinking.

Speakers

– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Chinese education, rooted in Confucian philosophy, excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivation but sometimes limits creativity due to exam-oriented systems

European education emphasizes student-centered pedagogy and interdisciplinary projects that nurture curiosity and creativity

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both advocate for moving away from rigid, time-based educational structures toward more flexible, competency-based systems that recognize individual learning differences while maintaining quality standards and collaborative elements.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Future education may shift toward competency-based rather than duration-based degree programs

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Unexpected consensus

The necessity of maintaining procedural and ritual aspects of learning despite AI efficiency

Speakers

– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

Universities remain necessary because they provide human interaction, meaning-making, and collaborative learning that AI cannot replicate

Explanation

It was unexpected to find consensus on the importance of maintaining traditional learning processes and rituals, even when AI can produce faster results. This suggests a recognition that the learning process itself, not just outcomes, has intrinsic value for human development.

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Human rights principles

The importance of allowing students to make mistakes as part of the learning process

Speakers

– Audience
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based to critical thinking and creativity-focused approaches to complement AI capabilities

Explanation

There was unexpected consensus on the value of inefficiency and mistakes in learning, contrasting with typical discussions about AI’s efficiency benefits. This highlights a sophisticated understanding that struggle and error are essential components of human learning and development.

Topics

Online education | Capacity development | Human rights principles

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed strong consensus on several key points: universities and teachers remain essential but must transform their roles from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators; AI should complement rather than replace human education; critical thinking and human-centered skills are crucial; and flexible, competency-based educational approaches are needed. There was also unexpected agreement on preserving traditional learning processes and the value of allowing students to make mistakes.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with remarkable alignment across speakers from different cultural and professional backgrounds. The implications suggest a shared vision for AI-integrated education that preserves human elements while embracing technological enhancement. This consensus provides a strong foundation for developing collaborative approaches to educational reform that bridge Eastern and Western pedagogical traditions.

Different viewpoints

Pace and timing of AI integration in education

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

AI represents a paradigm shift requiring fundamental changes in educational approaches, moving from knowledge transmission to human-centered, integrative learning

The timing for major educational reforms may be premature, requiring more time for AI to mature before making fundamental changes

Summary

Hao Liu advocates for immediate and comprehensive AI integration with fundamental changes to educational approaches, while audience members suggest it may be premature to make major educational reforms before AI technology matures sufficiently in large communities

Topics

Online education | Future of work

Balance between efficiency and learning process

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Jovan Kurbalija
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Summary

Hao Liu emphasizes efficiency and flexible pacing in education, Jovan Kurbalija advocates for maintaining procedural learning processes regardless of outcomes, while audience members worry that efficiency-focused approaches might compromise essential learning experiences like making mistakes and experimentation

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Unexpected differences

The role of mistake-making in learning

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

The challenge lies in teaching students how to effectively use AI tools while maintaining their ability to think critically and creatively

Explanation

While both sides support maintaining human elements in education, there’s an unexpected tension between Hao Liu’s emphasis on efficiency and flexible progression versus audience concerns that AI-assisted learning might prevent students from experiencing necessary failures and mistakes that build resilience and creativity

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Overall assessment

Summary

The discussion revealed relatively low levels of fundamental disagreement, with most speakers agreeing on core principles like the continued need for human teachers and universities, the importance of AI literacy, and the necessity of educational reform. The main disagreements centered on implementation approaches, timing, and the balance between efficiency and traditional learning processes.

Disagreement level

Low to moderate disagreement level with high consensus on fundamental principles but differing views on implementation strategies. This suggests a constructive foundation for collaborative educational reform while highlighting the need for careful consideration of cultural differences and the pace of change in AI integration.

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers advocate for flexible, personalized education systems that accommodate different learning paces while maintaining the importance of human guidance and collaborative learning. They both emphasize the coaching role of educators in helping students navigate AI-enhanced learning environments.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Norman Sze

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Teachers must transition from ‘sage on the stage’ to coaches who help students learn how to learn and navigate information effectively

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Both speakers recognize the value in different cultural approaches to education and advocate for learning from both Eastern and Western educational philosophies. They see potential in combining the strengths of both systems – Eastern foundational rigor with Western creativity and critical thinking.

Speakers

– Norman Sze
– Jovan Kurbalija

Arguments

Chinese education, rooted in Confucian philosophy, excels in knowledge transmission and character cultivation but sometimes limits creativity due to exam-oriented systems

European education emphasizes student-centered pedagogy and interdisciplinary projects that nurture curiosity and creativity

Confucian emphasis on procedures and rituals in learning should complement modern efficiency-focused approaches

Topics

Cultural diversity | Online education | Interdisciplinary approaches

Both advocate for moving away from rigid, time-based educational structures toward more flexible, competency-based systems that recognize individual learning differences while maintaining quality standards and collaborative elements.

Speakers

– Hao Liu
– Audience

Arguments

Universities should adopt flexible academic systems that allow students to progress at different paces while maintaining collaborative learning experiences

Future education may shift toward competency-based rather than duration-based degree programs

Topics

Online education | Capacity development

Key takeaways

Universities and professors remain essential in the AI era, but must fundamentally transform their roles from knowledge transmitters to coaches and facilitators

AI should be viewed as a complementary tool rather than a replacement for human educators, enhancing rather than eliminating the educational process

Educational systems must shift from memorization-based learning to developing critical thinking, creativity, and uniquely human skills like empathy and ethical judgment

There are valuable opportunities for cross-cultural learning between Chinese (Confucian-based) and European (student-centered) educational approaches

AI literacy must encompass three core areas: critical thinking to evaluate AI outputs, creative collaboration skills, and ethical awareness of AI’s societal impacts

The pace of learning varies among students, suggesting a need for flexible, competency-based rather than duration-based educational programs

Human interaction and meaning-making through dialogue remain irreplaceable elements of education that AI cannot provide

Teachers must develop new competencies in coaching students on how to learn, execute, communicate, lead, and make sound judgments

Resolutions and action items

Beijing Institute of Technology is implementing flexible academic systems allowing students to progress at different paces

BIT is considering allowing competent students to skip lectures and go directly to examinations if they can demonstrate mastery

A follow-up session on AI, governance, education and philosophy is scheduled for the next day (2-5pm)

An AI Philosophy Caravan is planned for August 7-17, traveling through multiple Chinese cities to continue these discussions

Universities should integrate AI tools across teaching, assessment, and student engagement while maintaining quality standards

Educational institutions need to develop new frameworks that blend Eastern rigor with Western innovation in AI literacy curriculum

Unresolved issues

How to effectively prevent or manage student use of AI for essay writing while maintaining academic integrity

The timeline and specific methods for transforming traditional pedagogical approaches to accommodate AI integration

How to balance efficiency gains from AI with the need for students to experience the learning process, including making mistakes

The potential impact of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) on education, which may arrive within months or years

How to maintain collaborative learning experiences while allowing students to progress at individual paces

Specific assessment methods that can effectively evaluate student competency in an AI-augmented learning environment

The long-term viability of traditional degree structures and university business models in an AI-driven world

Suggested compromises

Adopt an ‘AI apprenticeship’ model where students learn by engaging with AI tools under professor guidance, similar to traditional master-apprentice relationships

Maintain procedural and ritual elements from Confucian educational philosophy while incorporating modern efficiency and innovation

Use AI to handle routine analysis and data processing while focusing human educators on strategic insight and creative problem-solving

Implement hybrid approaches that combine the knowledge transmission strengths of Chinese education with the creativity-fostering methods of European systems

Allow flexible academic progression while maintaining collaborative learning requirements to develop teamwork skills

Replace traditional essay writing with dialectical discussions and interactive formats that AI cannot replicate

Focus on developing both technical AI literacy and soft skills that remain uniquely human

Looking at what scholars and scientists say about artificial general intelligence, this will completely change how we interact as humans. We do not know what that may look like. But my question is, how do the comments that have been shared… relate to the fact that we may have AGI with us in the next couple of months or midterm future?

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged the entire premise of the discussion by introducing the concept of AGI as a potential game-changer that could make current educational debates obsolete. It forced participants to think beyond current AI capabilities to a fundamentally different future scenario.

Impact

This question created a pivotal moment that shifted the discussion from theoretical educational philosophy to urgent practical concerns. It prompted Jovan to acknowledge current challenges while admitting the uncertainty of AGI’s impact, and led to the central question of whether professors and universities are still needed.

I think the role of AI providing prompts, this might take away from true experimentation, true making mistakes, that you can sort of build the strength of becoming more creative or becoming more resilient… I’m not sure about the use of AI in some of these contexts, whether it’s actually preventing sort of the building of some of these more softer skill sets

Speaker

Rui Yang from Singapore

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified a fundamental paradox in AI-assisted education – that efficiency and assistance might actually undermine the very struggles and failures that build character and resilience. It challenged the assumption that AI assistance is universally beneficial.

Impact

This observation deepened the conversation by introducing the concept that educational struggle has intrinsic value. It influenced subsequent speakers to emphasize the importance of human coaching, emotional intelligence, and the irreplaceable value of making mistakes in the learning process.

I think make mistake is very important in our life to interact with others and to become myself… making mistake is also important and AI can’t give us this opportunity

Speaker

Jingjing, PhD student in law from BIT

Reason

This comment was insightful because it articulated a profound philosophical point about the role of failure in human development and identity formation. It suggested that perfection or efficiency isn’t the goal of education – human growth through imperfection is.

Impact

This comment reinforced and expanded on Rui Yang’s earlier point about the value of struggle, creating a thread in the discussion about the irreplaceable human elements of education. It helped establish a consensus that AI should complement rather than replace human learning experiences.

Chat GPT can’t do that. Like, Chat Gpt, you can ask it… That’s not gonna work, because I don’t care about Chadjipiti, it’s not human. So eventually, what this comes down to, I believe, is, you know, meaning making. It’s because through human interaction, we make meaning.

Speaker

Ben, student from University of Amsterdam

Reason

This comment was particularly thought-provoking because it identified the fundamental human need for meaningful connection and the role of emotional investment in learning. The blunt statement ‘I don’t care about ChatGPT, it’s not human’ captured an essential truth about human motivation and engagement.

Impact

This comment provided a powerful emotional and philosophical anchor for the discussion, emphasizing that education is fundamentally about human meaning-making. It influenced Jovan to connect this insight to Confucian philosophy about rituals and procedures, deepening the cultural and philosophical dimensions of the conversation.

With this AI kind of acceleration, there will be a time when the universities will have to revisit, should they really prescribe a duration or should they prescribe a set of competencies to be really evaluated whether a person qualifies for that degree or not

Speaker

Audience member

Reason

This comment was insightful because it challenged one of the most fundamental structural assumptions of higher education – the time-based degree system. It suggested that AI acceleration might require a complete reimagining of how we measure and validate learning.

Impact

This observation prompted Hao Liu to share BIT’s flexible academic system and their consideration of competency-based evaluation, showing how the comment connected directly to real institutional innovations. It shifted the discussion from theoretical to practical institutional reform.

The human teachers can observe or find the subtle emotional changes of the students, like they are a flicker of confusion, or they are hesitation, all the sadness behind the students… these subtle changes just showcase the fundamental lack of knowledge of the students

Speaker

Kong Miao-Ting, postgraduate from BIT

Reason

This comment was thought-provoking because it identified the sophisticated emotional intelligence required in teaching – the ability to read non-verbal cues and emotional states that reveal learning gaps. It highlighted the irreplaceable human capacity for empathy and emotional perception.

Impact

This comment added a crucial dimension to the discussion about human irreplaceability in education, focusing on emotional intelligence and non-verbal communication. It reinforced the emerging consensus about the unique value of human teachers while providing specific, concrete examples of what AI cannot replicate.

Overall assessment

These key comments fundamentally shaped the discussion by creating a progression from existential questioning to philosophical grounding to practical solutions. The AGI question created urgency and forced participants to confront fundamental assumptions. The comments about mistakes, meaning-making, and emotional intelligence established a philosophical foundation for human irreplaceability in education. The structural questions about competency-based learning pushed the conversation toward concrete institutional reforms. Together, these comments transformed what could have been a simple pro/con debate about AI in education into a nuanced exploration of human nature, learning psychology, institutional design, and cultural values. The discussion evolved from defensive positioning about the future of education to a more confident articulation of what makes human learning uniquely valuable, while acknowledging the need for significant pedagogical adaptation.

How can we ensure students are not using AI for drafting their essays while simultaneously encouraging them to use AI ethically?

Speaker

Jovan Kurbalija

Explanation

This represents a fundamental pedagogical challenge in the AI era – balancing the prevention of academic dishonesty with the practical necessity of AI literacy in modern education

How do the educational approaches discussed relate to the potential arrival of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) in the near future?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

AGI could fundamentally transform human-AI interaction and learning, requiring a complete reconsideration of current educational frameworks and approaches

How can education systems balance AI efficiency with the development of softer skills like creativity and resilience that come from making mistakes and true experimentation?

Speaker

Rui Yang (Singapore)

Explanation

There’s concern that AI assistance might prevent students from developing crucial soft skills that come from struggling through problems independently

Should universities prescribe fixed durations for degrees or should they focus on competency-based evaluation regardless of time taken?

Speaker

Unnamed audience member

Explanation

AI acceleration of learning suggests traditional time-based degree structures may become obsolete in favor of competency-based assessment

How can universities develop alternative methods to essay writing that still teach students how to make arguments and engage in critical thinking?

Speaker

Ben (University of Amsterdam)

Explanation

With AI capable of writing essays, new pedagogical methods are needed to develop argumentation and critical thinking skills

How can the alignment between industry needs and education be improved in the context of AI transformation?

Speaker

Norman Sze

Explanation

The rapid pace of AI adoption in industry requires educational institutions to better understand and respond to changing workforce requirements

How can European and Chinese educational approaches be integrated to create a framework that combines Eastern rigor with Western innovation?

Speaker

Norman Sze

Explanation

Cross-cultural educational collaboration could leverage the strengths of different pedagogical traditions to address AI-era challenges

What specific methods can be developed to teach students critical evaluation of AI outputs rather than passive acceptance?

Speaker

Multiple speakers (Norman Sze, others)

Explanation

As AI becomes more sophisticated, developing critical thinking skills to evaluate AI-generated content becomes increasingly important