When the Future Arrived: Why Human Capacity Matters More Than Ever

Reflections on Lee Crockett’s keynote at the AI & Future of Education Conference, Bangkok, 31 October 2026.

What happens to education when knowledge is everywhere, artificial intelligence can answer almost anything, and the future we have been preparing students for has already arrived?

This was the challenge posed by Lee Crockett in his thought-provoking keynote, When the Future Arrived: Why Human Capacity Matters More Than Ever.

Crockett, an author, educational speaker and advocate for human leadership capacity, challenged educators to reconsider not just how we teach, but why schools exist in the first place.

His argument was not that artificial intelligence will replace teachers. Instead, he suggested that schools risk becoming irrelevant if they continue to organise learning around delivering information that is now readily available elsewhere.

It was a presentation packed with science fiction, technological breakthroughs, historical examples and uncomfortable questions. Perhaps most importantly, Crockett regularly stopped to let the audience discuss what these changes might mean.

From Star Trek to Everyday Technology

Crockett began with something familiar to science fiction enthusiasts: Star Trek.

He showed examples of technologies imagined decades ago that have become part of our everyday lives.

The Universal Translator: Once a fictional device allowing people to communicate across languages, now reflected in increasingly capable real-time translation technologies.
The Communicator: The inspiration is easy to recognise in modern mobile phones.
The PADD: Star Trek’s portable information devices bear a striking resemblance to modern tablets.
The Tricorder: Although we have not recreated the complete fictional device, portable medical diagnostic equipment and handheld ultrasound scanners offer a glimpse of the same vision.
Wireless communication devices: Technologies that once looked futuristic are now so commonplace that we complain when we cannot find our wireless earbuds.

The fascinating point was not simply that these technologies had been invented. It was how quickly we stopped being impressed by them.

Consider video calling. For many of us, the first video call was an extraordinary experience. Today, we are more likely to complain about a poor connection than marvel at being able to see someone on the other side of the world.

Crockett described a recurring process: we imagine something, we build it, and then we normalise it.

This raised an important question: are we already normalising artificial intelligence before we have fully considered its implications?

The audience was invited to discuss which science fiction technologies they had always wanted to become reality. Teleportation, flying cars, instant knowledge acquisition and electronic books were among the suggestions.

For Crockett, the dream had been a computer like the one used by Spock, capable of answering questions and providing seemingly unlimited knowledge.

And now, in many respects, we have it.

The Future Is Already Here

To illustrate the speed of technological change, Crockett highlighted several remarkable developments.

In 2025, an advanced Google DeepMind AI system achieved gold-medal standard on problems from the International Mathematical Olympiad. Its solutions were officially assessed, demonstrating just how far machine reasoning had progressed.

At the University of California, Davis, researchers developed an experimental brain-computer interface allowing a man with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) to generate speech from neural signals, including changing his intonation and producing simple melodies.

Advances in retinal implants have offered some people with severe vision loss the possibility of recovering limited functional vision. Meanwhile, a team at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and collaborating institutions developed an individualised gene-editing treatment for a baby with a rare genetic disorder.

These are very different developments, and many remain experimental rather than widely available treatments. However, together they demonstrate the extraordinary pace at which scientific and technological possibilities are expanding.

For educators, the significance is not that every new invention belongs in the classroom.

It is that we are educating children for a world in which extraordinary technological change is becoming ordinary.

Why We Struggle to Understand Exponential Change

Crockett then took the audience through the history of computing, beginning with ENIAC, one of the earliest general-purpose electronic computers.

It occupied an enormous space, relied on thousands of vacuum tubes and required programmers to physically configure its connections. Many of those pioneering programmers were women whose contributions went unrecognised for decades.

Today, we carry devices in our pockets that are vastly more capable, and artificial intelligence can generate computer programmes in seconds.

Crockett connected this progress to Moore’s Law and exponential technological growth.

Our natural instinct is to think in straight lines. We expect gradual improvement, but technological development can involve periods of accelerating progress.

His warning was that education systems often respond slowly, even as the world around them changes rapidly.

We should, of course, be cautious about assuming that every AI capability will continue improving at the same rate. Computing hardware, algorithms, costs and practical limitations all affect progress.

Nevertheless, the underlying challenge remains: can an education system designed around gradual change respond to technologies developing at extraordinary speed?

Education Has Always Been Suspicious of New Technology

One of the most entertaining sections of the keynote explored education’s historical relationship with technology.

Crockett reminded us that resistance to new learning tools is hardly a modern phenomenon.

Socrates, as recorded by Plato, expressed concerns that writing would weaken memory and create the appearance of wisdom without genuine understanding.

Centuries later, Johannes Trithemius defended the work of manuscript scribes against printing. Ironically, his own arguments were eventually distributed through print.

The arrival of new writing instruments also provoked concern. Ballpoint pens were sometimes regarded as harmful to handwriting, while calculators became a source of debate about whether students would lose essential mathematical skills.

More recently, schools have struggled with the internet, YouTube and artificial intelligence.

In January 2023, New York City public schools blocked access to ChatGPT on their networks and devices, only to change their approach a few months later.

Crockett suggested that education often follows a familiar pattern: first restricting a technology, then tolerating it, and eventually incorporating it into ordinary practice.

The historical examples were amusing, but they prompted a serious question for the audience:

What has your school previously banned that it now quietly allows?

This is particularly relevant when we consider the difference between banning a technology and teaching students to use it responsibly.

There are legitimate safeguarding, privacy and age-appropriateness reasons for restricting particular tools. Not every ban is misguided, and restrictions are sometimes necessary.

However, a restriction alone does not teach students the judgement they will need when they encounter that technology outside school.

That distinction matters enormously in the age of AI.

The Real Threat Is Irrelevance

Crockett used another familiar example to explain disruptive innovation: Blockbuster and Netflix.

Blockbuster built its business around customers visiting shops to rent films. Netflix initially offered a different way of providing the same entertainment, before streaming fundamentally changed the industry.

People had not stopped wanting films. They simply found a different way to access them.

He also considered the evolution of music, from records and CDs to streaming services.

The product people wanted remained relatively consistent, but the method of delivery transformed.

This has direct implications for education.

If the main purpose of school is to deliver information, what happens when students can access explanations, practice activities and personalised assistance whenever they want?

An AI tutor can be available outside school hours. It can generate examples, provide feedback, adjust the difficulty of questions and offer different explanations.

This does not make it a complete replacement for a teacher. AI systems still make mistakes, and students need support to judge the quality of their responses. Human relationships, safeguarding, motivation and social development also matter.

But it does raise a challenging question: what value does a school provide that cannot simply be delivered through a screen?

Crockett’s answer was that schools must place greater emphasis on developing human capabilities.

When Intelligence Is No Longer Scarce

At one point, Crockett invited the audience to discuss what happens when expertise and intelligent assistance become widely accessible.

Several interesting perspectives emerged.

One participant suggested that expertise would increasingly be demonstrated by how effectively someone could use the intelligence available to them.

Another questioned whether greater productivity would actually reduce workloads. If technology allows us to accomplish much more, might expectations simply rise to match?

There was also an important distinction between having access to information and possessing the understanding needed to use it.

This is particularly relevant to education.

A student might use AI to produce a sophisticated answer without understanding the underlying principles. Having access to a powerful system is not the same as having expertise.

In our audience discussion, we also considered the importance of foundational knowledge. Students need sufficient understanding to recognise mistakes, question suggestions and make informed decisions.

This is why the debate about knowledge versus skills can sometimes be misleading.

We need both.

Students cannot exercise meaningful critical thinking without something to think critically about. Equally, simply remembering facts is insufficient when those facts must be interpreted, evaluated and applied.

The challenge is finding the right balance.

Three Ways AI Enters the Classroom

One particularly useful framework from Crockett’s presentation described three ways artificial intelligence might be present in learning activities.

1. AI invited

AI is deliberately included as part of the learning design.

For example, students might use an AI tutor to practise a foreign language, receive formative feedback or explore alternative approaches to a problem.

2. AI permitted

Students are allowed to use AI within clearly defined boundaries.

For example, they might use it to brainstorm ideas or identify errors, while remaining responsible for the reasoning and final work.

3. AI possible

AI is not explicitly included or permitted, but students may still be able to use it to complete much of the task.

This third category is particularly challenging.

A traditional homework assignment might be completed almost entirely with AI, making it difficult for a teacher to distinguish genuine understanding from a polished generated response.

Simply telling students not to use AI does not remove this possibility.

Instead, we need to reconsider what evidence of learning we are collecting.

Can students explain their decisions? Can they demonstrate their understanding in unfamiliar situations? Can they identify flaws in a proposed answer? Can they reflect on how their thinking has changed?

These questions take us beyond the finished product and towards the learning process itself.

From Delivering Content to Developing People

Perhaps the most significant argument of the keynote was that schools must shift their priorities.

Crockett outlined several important changes.

Traditional emphasis	Emerging priority
Delivering content	Designing conditions for learning
Finding information	Evaluating and interpreting information
Protecting closed systems	Guiding responsible participation
Instruction alone	Human development
Producing correct answers	Exercising judgement

None of this means that subject knowledge becomes unimportant.

Students still need to read, write, calculate, reason and understand their subjects. They need these foundations to make good decisions and use increasingly powerful tools effectively.

However, knowledge should contribute to something larger.

We should be developing young people who are curious, thoughtful, resilient, collaborative and capable of making responsible decisions.

This includes ethical judgement, creativity, adaptability and the ability to build meaningful relationships.

As AI becomes increasingly capable of generating information and producing finished work, these human capabilities become even more important.

What Does This Mean for Teachers?

One of the most valuable aspects of the keynote was that it did not simply celebrate technology.

It challenged educators to question their existing practices.

For example, we might ask:

Are students genuinely thinking, or simply completing tasks?
Are we assessing understanding, or the quality of a finished product?
Are we giving students opportunities to exercise judgement and creativity?
Are we teaching responsible AI use, rather than relying entirely on restrictions?
Are students learning to solve unfamiliar problems?
Are we creating opportunities for discussion, collaboration and reflection?

These are not questions exclusive to computing lessons.

They apply equally to English, mathematics, science, humanities, the arts and primary education.

A well-designed learning experience should help students develop capabilities that extend beyond the immediate assessment.

This also has implications for professional learning. Teachers need time to experiment, reflect, collaborate and reconsider established practices.

We cannot expect teachers to develop adaptable learners within systems that give educators no opportunity to adapt themselves.

The Challenge of Examinations

During the final audience discussion, the topic turned towards established examination systems such as IGCSEs and A Levels.

These qualifications continue to place significant demands on subject content, and teachers understandably feel pressure to prepare students for high-stakes assessments.

This can create tension between curriculum coverage and the broader human capabilities we say we value.

The answer is not necessarily to abandon examinations or subject knowledge.

Instead, we should recognise that examination success and developing capable young people are related but not identical goals.

Students need opportunities to think independently, make mistakes, collaborate and tackle challenges without immediately being given the correct answer.

Some of those experiences are difficult to capture through conventional assessments, but that does not make them less valuable.

Stop Preparing for the Future

Towards the end of his keynote, Crockett returned to the language we use about education.

For years, educators have discussed future skills: creativity, critical thinking, communication, collaboration and adaptability.

Yet referring to these as future skills can make them sound like something we will eventually need to address.

Crockett challenged this assumption.

The future is not something waiting for the next generation.

It is already here.

The technologies we once imagined are in our pockets, on our desks and increasingly embedded in the tools students use every day.

The question is no longer whether education should respond.

It is how.

Crockett’s closing challenge drew upon his background in Zen practice: if we want a different future, we must interrupt the patterns that are already producing our current one.

For educators, this might mean reconsidering a familiar assignment, redesigning an assessment, making more space for student discussion or deliberately creating opportunities for independent problem-solving.

We do not have to change everything overnight.

But we do have to begin.

Final Reflection: The Future Is Human

I found the keynote particularly relevant because so much of the current conversation about education focuses on what AI can do.

Can it generate lesson plans? Can it create assessments? Can it provide feedback? Can it personalise learning? Can it write code?

These are useful questions, but perhaps they are not the most important ones.

The more significant question is what we want our students to become.

If we use AI simply to produce more worksheets, generate more content and complete the same tasks more quickly, we may improve efficiency without fundamentally improving education.

However, if we use these technologies to create more time for discussion, experimentation, creativity and meaningful problem-solving, we have an opportunity to improve learning.

We should not confuse the ability to produce an answer with the ability to understand a problem.

Nor should we confuse technological capability with human wisdom.

The future of education should not be about making students compete with increasingly intelligent machines. It should be about helping them become more capable, thoughtful and responsible human beings.

That, for me, was the most important message from Lee Crockett’s keynote.

And it is a challenge worth taking seriously.

Author

James Abela

View all posts