By: Atty. Gregorio B. Austral, CPA
Classroom teacher versus chatbot: Who wins?
Gone are the days when students look up to their teachers as the fountain of
knowledge. Students are capable of learning by themselves, with the teacher acting as
a mere facilitator.
What happens when a chatbot can learn tons of information and, using this
information, can accurately answer any question asked? Will the classroom teacher still
be useful?
Above is an example of a potentially disruptive innovation. With the wide use of
self-learning chatbots and artificial intelligence technologies, teachers and other workers
risk being displaced due to the obsolescence of knowledge and skills.
In the course of history, disruptive innovations displaced the current incumbents.
Who would have thought that a company so indispensable in all our special
occasions in the past would be toppled down and its most admired product could even
be hardly appreciated by the young generation of today?
Remember Kodak whose brand name became so famous in film photography.
So famous that the public used its brand name to refer to the act of taking pictures.
When we took pictures before, we do not say “magpapicture” but we say
“magpaKodak”. Kodak enjoyed market leadership in a way that it was very hard for
new entrants in the camera and film industry to penetrate. But this was only until the
market started patronizing digital photography.
Kodak is a casualty of “disruptive innovation.” The death or near-death status of
other market leaders like RCPI, Nokia, Underwood, Polaroid, Blackberry and many other
companies can likewise be attributed to this phenomenon.
Disruption theory tells us that certain innovations can undermine existing
products, firms, or even entire industries. The market entrant’s innovation ultimately
displaces industry incumbents (Nathan Cortez, Regulating Disruptive Innovation,
Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Vol. 29, Issue 1 Spring).
Disruptive innovation presents a difficult task to the regulators. In the
Philippines, we are known to have many laws and regulations which are almost a
hundred years old but remain to be the bible of many regulatory agencies. Take the
case of our Negotiable Instruments Law which is primarily based on the assumption
that merchants will do their transaction in writing. With the emergence of mobile and
online banking, time will come that business will completely patronize paperless
transactions. By that time, this law will become completely irrelevant.
In this VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) world, the only thing
that is permanent is change. Regulators have a dilemma in supervising disruptive
innovations. Too much regulation can stifle innovation and prevents development.
This is a case of law at odds with technology. But a very liberal regulatory policy may
amount to a disservice to the sworn duty of these regulatory agencies, that is, to
protect the public from the greed and abuse of unscrupulous business empires. These
are difficult choices of regulatory policy framework.
Other than charter change, our lawmakers and regulators should also keep their
hands busy on laws regulating technology. Otherwise, obsolescence may eventually
serve their death warrants. Who knows if there will also be a disruptive innovation in
government?
Now back to the question: between the classroom teacher and the chatbot, who
wins? In the short-term perspective, the chatbot wins due to the speed it delivers what
is needed. In the long-term perspective, however, the one with the heart wins.