ENTREPRENEUR BIZ TIPS: Artificial intelligence & the future of education systems | Bernhard Schindlholzer | TEDxFHKufstein

ENTREPRENEUR BIZ TIPS: Artificial intelligence & the future of education systems | Bernhard Schindlholzer | TEDxFHKufstein

Here’s Great Tip: Artificial intelligence & the future of education systems | Bernhard Schindlholzer | TEDxFHKufstein

Here is Something You Should See…

Dr. Bernhard Schindlholzer is a technology manager working on Machine Learning and E-commerce. In this talk he gave at TEDx FHKufstein, Bernhard Schindlholzer contemplated the implications of ephemeralization – the ability of technological advancement to do “more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing” – through artificial intelligence and machine learning. He explores the challenges that this technological approach poses to our economy and, furthermore, how they could be addressed by questioning established norms of our education systems.

Dr. Bernhard Schindlholzer is a technology manager working on Machine Learning and E-commerce.

This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at

42 Replies to “ENTREPRENEUR BIZ TIPS: Artificial intelligence & the future of education systems | Bernhard Schindlholzer | TEDxFHKufstein”

  1. I thought the video is about using AI in education. It turned out that the talk about developing education to make graduates ready for the age of AI.

  2. This is a fantastic look st re-imagining education, its about critical thinking, problem solving and solution based. There will be many problems the world encounters in years to come and with the advancements of technology we need to start thinking about education differently.

  3. Even though Google seems to have all of the answers, we still need knowledge. It's much more difficult going through life using a cell phone to calculate every arithmetic operation you need to make. It takes a lot longer to understand the historical relevance of a situation if you don't know what previously happened that was relevant. You can't learn from case studies if you don't know much about business. With that said, of course problem-solving skills are important. But jumping all the way to real world problems, with their large numbers of variables and infinite complexities, asks an enormous amount of our students. I think that the skillful teaching of problems-solving in controlled situations (scaffolding) is the missing link. This gives them the skills they need while solving problems they can handle. Even experienced adults can't solve most real world problems.

  4. This model has been developed in great depth by Donald Schon. I have two comments to make about the presentation. First, the dualism of learning content for memory vs. knowledge for use is untenable. Knowledge for use is indeed the Centerpoint, and universities have to shift to that paradigm. But using knowing always means that there is off-the-shelf knowledge ready at hand. Second, not all learning situations requiring knowledge use CAN be simulations – or what Schon calls "practica." Consider practice teaching. If it offers any lessons for the teacher, there have to be real students. If there are real students, then the practice teaching has real-world consequences and is not just a "practicum." Also, if the work is really simulated, as in city design by way of Sim city and the like, then it can be highly miseducative. Real life is … well, real. Humans are hugely complex systems and cannot be causally mapped or reduced to algorithms.

    This is a great talk. The importance of PBL and immersion are difficult to overstate and lost completely absent from contemporary secondary and tertiary education. But educational theory has gone beyond it, conceptually speaking, in these two ways

  5. “Ephemerilization” WTF?
    At first I thought, “this is bologna”. Lol. Then I realized this must be a parody for Tedx. Lmao. Cool attempt, but needs a bit more sarcasm. The boy speaking has “adopted” his accent very well.

  6. search for the video
    "German Programmer Bashes the Deep Learning Trend"
    training an average DL network alrdy consumes energy equivalent to something like 5 cars CO2 lifetime + fabrication costs.
    and much more in the video

  7. This guy is such a terrible speaker, like seriously, he's exaggerating the insignificant things for minutes before getting to a boring point he presents as profound, this is unlistenable

  8. Well, someone today starting an advanced degree that may take 6 to 8 years will be out of work. Simulations, calculations, and using datum to solve "real world" problems will be antiquated. You have a better chance of carving out a niche teaching frisbee tricks. AI wont be able to do that for at least 15 years.

  9. What he said makes sense, although I feel like problem-based learning may be difficult to implement for some courses. For example, I teach undergraduate-level calculus, and one of my colleagues let students work in groups on example problems most of the time. Sometimes students just procrastinate or get stuck for a long time, which impedes her lecture progress. It would be interesting to see how we can implement problem based-learning for calculus while getting through the lecture material in a timely manner.

  10. if computers are programed to teach, but computers can only be as good as their programming and fallible humans are doing the programming, then the machina will only be as good as their programmers. see the problem? show me a computer and programming that doesn't need updated every 24 hours and well we can finally put Android, apple, and hallelujah, Microsoft out to pasture. oops too much money at stake. oh well it was a nice Fantasy. AI. absolutely improbable.

  11. The opposite of "sage-on-the-stage" is the "guide-by-the-side". The "sage" concept is gradually perishing. Teachers are accountable for not only the academic success of the students, but also for their ability to solve real-life problems through rational decision-making. We have too many distractors to impede learning in the conventional technology-based pedagogy. I believe that the human 'guide' by the side of the students is indispensable. The AI-driven teaching tools are still too expensive to administer in a low-budget education system.

  12. What about the role of music, art, theatre, dance, sport, civics, in creating a rounded education for our future citizens? Or will only the voices of those who have an interest in science, engineering and technology be fostered and appreciated? Is education only about 'practical problem solving', as important as this is for our future survival? And can a lopsided education really provide the deepest answers to our questions and needs as human beings? Can it include important considerations about value, ethics, and meaning, which are more easily stimulated by study of the arts and literature? I prefer the approach of Ken Robinson, whose TED talks are among the most popular, an expert who argues that education needs to appreciate the talents, interests and abilities of all children, rather than just those who are attracted to STEM subjects.And, in case you think that this is backward thinking and irrelevant to today's society and global economy, the 'creative' thinking that such 'problem focused' education requires can only be encouraged if the brain and heart are stimulated by a healthy mix of subjects that engage all parts of our humanity. No wonder students from China and the east, who have opted for a largely science and technology based education, are now queuing up to attend western universities in order to make up for the lack of creativity and flexibility that their right brain education has caused.

  13. All these guys and ladies are doing is mostly chewing and re-chewing the same concepts over and over again….Very seldom you learn anything new: one lecture (or article) suffices to know all what is around with regards to AI (not to mention AI applied to education….). As well, contradictions and sieve-alike logics seem not to affect the confidence of these new generation of Ciceros….so long for AI as a serious matter…..

  14. What about students that are lacking motivation? What about students with special needs? Many students shut down when faced with the type of problem-solving based learning the speaker describes. Often, in this type of learning situation, the 1 or 2 motivated students in a group end up doing the work. Not everyone learns in the same way, and it appears that some in the tech fields are falling into the same trap of pushing a singular education model that, while different from students sitting with their little desks all in a row, will not address the diverse needs of many. Many students do not know how to be self-directed learners, and many students do not have supportive home environments when it comes to education. Many students have had gaps in education, lack basic skills, or are behind grade level. We need to have multiple approaches to instruction, and we need to be better at identifying the best approach for each student. This is the only way we won't be creating more inequality.

  15. But how can you become a top researcher without having absorbed knowledge in the way we do it today? How can you expand the boundaries of knowledge then? Only resolving problems?

  16. Only if the solutions are cheep it will work. They will probably not be cheep and free, and then you need the most briliant people, the ones that invent new relevant math.

  17. The abuse of the term "AI" is why I've come up with a more specific term: "FIAI" – which stands for "Fully-Independent Artificial Intelligence" – which is what most people envision when they see 'AI', rather than the limited predetermined systems that wrongly commandeer the moniker. By fully independent AI, I mean entities that ask moral questions before they make decisions (and take subsequent actions) – entities on par with us.

    Not directly related, but he also fails to ask, "Why bother?" (meaning his arguments are philosophically vapid, meaning they will be disregarded, and hence are at risk of being ignored and failing).

    Just to note, he does not address AI in this video (so having it in the video title is misleading), but a 'real-world problem-solving' approach to learning.

    He is on to something when he says future jobs will be non-routine problem-solving endeavors (but again, without a mindframe that contains an ultimate value and related ultimate goal to life, it makes such problem-solving a clueless endeavor, leaving any good that it does in peril, due to the ongoing cluelessness). Note how he says future economic growth will be based on technology (rather than the true driver – philosophy) – in other words, a blind faith in problem solving (and Hitler (to use a high-profile example) demonstrated the flaw in the blind faith of science and technology) (isn't it good to learn from history). So he mentions occupations such as engineers and scientists, but fails to mention philosophers (mainly because they continue to fail us – enter me), who are the real drivers of industry (and hence economies). If you, for example, take my life-guiding philosophy of 'The Great Struggle', and its more immediate goal of securing higher consciousness in a harsh and deadly universe, then you have the philosophical guidance for industrial (and scientific and engineering) endeavors, rather than the trite philosophies (money, power, fame) that currently drive mankind in their blind ignorance of their cosmic peril.

    He is on the wrong path with 'students applying their knowledge' – since the students have insufficient knowledge – their applications will be pointless, hence uninspiring. Rather, begin at kindergarten and have the kids address real-world issues, to get them in that frame of mind early. The kids will discover what they need to know to solve problems, and they will have a taste of managing mental tools such as information, generalizations, classifications, and assumptions, all of which play a part, especially in inexact endeavors, such as with social problems…

    and it turns out that this is exactly what Stanford University is doing (now the question is how they are going about it – are they emphasizing having the students realize the various things they need to know to solve real-world problems?). Unfortunately, with the Stanford program, students are working on 'solutions for profit' – in which they are being exploited, rather than on general humanity problems (and without an enlightened mindframe, such as the one I offered above).

    "Problem-Based Learning" ( 11:22 ) – yes, that is what I was referring to – the theory being that giving the kids an immediate, real-world 'purpose' for learning will stimulate their desire to learn everything needed to solve that problem. They will, in fact, go home thinking about that problem (because humans, even kids, love to solve problems). It is the old "learn by doing" (though I myself have had no problem learning by theory, where the piece of knowledge (gained through knowledge transfer, which the speaker is against) may be applied to many diverse (and unforeseen) future problems).

    Nice concept ( 13:28 ) where the outcome is not graded, but rather the application of knowledge. As for the disdained 'knowledge transfer' of current educations systems, the problem there is in enlightening the student as to the variety of problems that each bit of transferred knowledge can be subsequently applied to (not to mention unforeseen problems), giving the student some inspiring broader/more far-ranging 'purpose' other than animal survival (which should be a given in today's world) or vain/trite local/immediate concerns such as impressing someone (usually who does not rate it) (and again we are getting into philosophy).

    Good that he mentions that we do not have to be afraid of new technology (sadly, it needs to be said), but rather look at it as a potential tool in solving more problems – though he is 'preaching to the choir' if he is addressing technology students – he needs to address liberal arts students, who have wilder, more uninformed imaginations toward technology (cyborgs taking over the world, anyone?) (we need look no further than Hollywood).

  18. The internet has already totally transformed education. The "sage on the stage" model of teaching has been with us for a thousand years since Oxford popularized the method in the west. But it is an expensive and unsustainable model. At major universities, your personal interaction is usually just with a TA or a study group. Knowledge is moving so fast that printed texts can't keep current. Traversing a campus everyday is a massive time sink. If AI succeeds in giving personalized feedback and teaching then the Oxford model is pretty much dead dead dead.

  19. As forward thinking as this is, it's still not seeing a couple of things. 1) Designing training automatically puts the student behind the curve. An approved course of instruction is always late to the party, so the students might as well collaborate with the professors in the transfer and discovery of knowledge. 2) Immersion is only useful in academia. Once a person has entered the workforce, it is no longer appropriate because you can't just pull your employees out of the field to put them into full-time training.

  20. Why would the government want to fund education beyond the basics, if A.I can outperform any human? For the majority no work, no independent income a life on welfare.

  21. I didn't understand how people could qualify for jobs based on their ability to use knowledge. No examples were given and how is it different from now? AI gathering all the knowledge so we just sit back and use it? sounds ridiculous

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *