Can technology platforms and artificial intelligence improve political discourse in America? Some entrepreneurs and universities seem to think so.
America has become increasingly polarized over the past decade, with incendiary rhetoric dominating political conversations on the airwaves and interwebs. Politicians and influencers from every political affiliation spend much of their time peddling in outrage and demonizing those who disagree with them.
Politically-motivated violence has become more commonplace. Violence and threats against public officials have risen by 14 percent over the past year.
But some companies are trying to do something about it. NBC News published a report about two tech platforms called Dialogues and Sway that seek to bridge the political and ideological divide among K-12 students in the classroom.
Dialogues, developed by Sal Khan’s nonprofit Schoolhouse.world, connects high school students from varying background to chop it up about hot-button political topics, including gun control, the war in Gaza, gender ideology, and others.
Using the service, students can dialogue about an issue, presenting their opposing views on the matter at hand. Each conversation is followed by peer reviews of each participant’s conduct during the debate. These are compiled into “Dialogue Portfolios.” Some universities have agreed to accept these portfolios as part of the admissions process.
Khan explained, “It’s a way to do what I think is happning in very few parts of our society: building bridges between people who have different points of view.”
Sway, a similar platform, is being used in 200 college campuses. The platform uses artificial intelligence moderators to guide civil and constructive debates.
Professor Julia Minson with Harvard University, added AI scoring to her courses to assess students’ “open-mindedenss.”
She pointed out how schools “didn’t teach [students] in high school to express their views clearly and then ask the other person what they believe.”
Proponents of these platforms tout their structured, low-risk environments in which young students can practice handling disagreement. “The ability to hone or practice some of these skills may only be offered at wealthier or better-resourced schools,” said University of Chicago admissions dean Jim Nondorf, pointing out how the technology could help students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
UCLA Professor Abigail Saguy explained that her students became more empathetic and less reactionary after using Sway.
Khan emphasized how important it is for young people to learn how to debate ideas and issues in a civil manner. “The real world is you’re going to meet people — or you should meet people — that you disagree with, and you should be able to listen to them,” he said.
However, not everyone is sold on the idea. Some have argued that Dialogues risks becoming a checkbox for elite college admissions. They suggest that the university is where people should continue learning how to practice constructive dialogue. Taking in only students who are already proficient defeats a key purpose of academia.
Harvard student Alex Bronzini-Velder warned that the Dialogues program could inadvertently filter out students who “would impove their conversational skills on campus.”
However, Sway is not being used for admissions purposes, which relieves pressure for the students who are using it. Still, the question remains: Can these AI-powered platforms foster civil discourse?”
Based on what I can see, it can definitely help if it is used in the right way. Whenever I see efforts purporting to help students learn how to debate politics in a constructive way, I am immediately concerned about bias.
When organizations were creating games aimed at helping young people learn media literacy, quickly realized that many of these initiatives were merely ways to reinforce leftist ideology by labeling anything running counter to progressive thought as “misinformation” and “disinformation.”
Rather than teaching people how to discern truth from fiction, it simply taught them that right-leaning perspectives are automatically labeled as “fake news.”
But if these platforms can avoid the bias and treat all viewpoints fairly, then I could see how it might help. Learning how to formulate and articulate a coherent argument by practicing it on others is the best way for people to learn. However, as Khan pointed out, these interactions will eventually require face-to-face verbal conversations — whether in person or virtually.
Relying on chat conversations is certainly a positive step. But at some point, these students will learn how to engage in productive dialogue through spoken words —- when they can see the other person they are conversing with. If society can find a way to equip younger people with these skills, it might go a long way toward cooling down political rhetoric.
