From DSC:
I used to be able to bring up Firefly on the web and use it “free” of charge — I didn’t have to go purchase tokens or credits. (I was actually paying for the Adobe Creative Cloud Pro suite of tools…so it wasn’t really free.)

But the other day I was trying to figure out what the latest pricing is at Adobe with that suite of tools and the use of credits for AI-based features. They say Adobe Creative Cloud Pro users get 4000 credits a month. Well, I have that suite and I’m still getting prompted to purchase credits. Firefly for individuals runs from $9.99 (2,000 credits/month) to $139.91 per month (50,000 credits per month). Not inexpensive, right? Below are other items along these lines.


The Era of Affordable AI Is Over. What Comes Next? — from builtin.com by Ameya Kanitkar
AI providers are shifting to usage-based billing for their services. AI fluency is more important now than ever to make the most of your tools to avoid unnecessary spending.

Summary: The era of cheap, flat-rate AI is ending as providers shift to usage-based billing. Every prompt now carries a direct cost, turning casual use into major budget risks, as seen when Uber depleted its 2026 AI budget in four months. Leaders must now track real-time value and token efficiency.

For a brief window, companies had access to the most transformative technology in a generation at the cost of a streaming subscription. Tools like ChatGPT put AI within reach of anyone with a browser and time for experimentation, while GitHub Copilot came in at just $10 a month, with token costs remaining relatively low. In the beginning, experimentation felt cost-effective, easy and relatively low-risk. 

But that era is ending, and the bill is coming due faster than a lot of enterprise leaders anticipated. 


The Fable of AI in Education — from downes.ca by Stephen Downes
Marc Watkins, Rhetorica, Jun 17, 2026

Tokenomics will be a hot topic of discussion on university campuses because, as Marc Watkins notes in this article, there is no realistic path forward to providing all students with access to advanced AI.


From this posting on LinkedIn.com from Dr. Nick Jackson:

And now there is a third layer emerging. Institutions are waking up to a systems-level question they are likely not remotely prepared for. Who pays for AI? How are budgets managed when there are unclear token consumption pricing models? How is AI procured? Who decides what tools get used and by whom and who gets access and at what level?

.


 

If AI Eats the Entry-Level Job, Where Do Young People Learn to Work? (Ryan Craig, Achieve Partners) — from humanistxyz.substack.com by Allison Dulin Salisbury; via Ryan Craig
“The public should not be subsidizing colleges whose students lack relevant, paid, in-field work experience.”

That is the trap at the center of this conversation: everyone wants to hire someone with three years of experience, and almost no one wants to provide those three years.

And Ryan’s policy prescription is unusually concrete: pay employers to hire and train apprentices, following the countries that have scaled apprenticeship far faster than the U.S.; require colleges receiving federal student aid to provide relevant, paid, in-field work experience; and build a market of intermediaries that can make the whole thing operational.

Ryan’s view is that higher education remains critically important. But college without meaningful work experience may become a much worse bet, especially for students who cannot afford to guess wrong.

 

The Evolving L&D Roles in 2026 Exploring who you might become next — from liftedlnd.substack.com by Lifted L&D

1. The Learning Experience Architect
This is really the evolution of the instructional designer. The difference is that the focus is no longer on building individual courses. Instead, the focus shifts towards designing capability ecosystems.

In modern learning platforms, learning is dynamic and increasingly personalised. AI engines infer skill levels, recommend resources, generate practice scenarios and adapt content based on how people engage. The role of the Learning Experience Architect is to orchestrate that environment so it genuinely supports capability development.

Across all of these emerging roles, three themes keep appearing.

The first is data fluency. …
The second is systems thinking. …
The third is human judgement.


Also relevant/see:


 
 
 


Rethinking Learning Design in Elementary Schools — from edcircuit.com
Why K–5 leaders must redesign—not just adopt—technology to restore attention, deepen thinking, and align AI with how children actually learn

Rethinking learning design in elementary schools is critical as screen time and AI reshape attention, thinking, and student engagement.

Designing for Thinking, Not Just Doing
At its core, learning design must shift from task completion to thinking development.

This requires creating environments where students:

  • Spend time processing ideas
  • Work through confusion without immediate answers
  • Build persistence through challenge

It also requires clarity around the role of technology.

Technology should:

  • Extend thinking
  • Provide meaningful feedback
  • Support exploration

It should not:

  • Replace effort
  • Short-circuit reasoning
  • Eliminate productive struggle

The goal is not to reduce technology use.

It is to ensure that students remain the ones doing the thinking.


Should We Integrate AI into Our Teaching?: Evidence-Based Guidelines for Deciding When AI Belongs — from Faculty Focus by Norman Eng, EdD

Four Questions for Deciding Whether to Use AI

Question 1: Will this AI tool help students use, recall, and demonstrate understanding of core disciplinary content?
Question 2: Will this AI tool require students to apply their learning to a new context?
Question 3: Will this AI tool support—not replace—independent, evidence-based reasoning?
Question 4: Will this AI integration preserve meaningful human interaction?


 

Christian: Could this be a part of our future learning ecosystems?


From DSC:
Could this be a part of our future learning ecosystems? Education as a personalized content feed.


Coursera wants users to learn through shorter, faster content  — from digitaltrends.com by Moinak Pal
Coursera wants online learning to feel more like TikTok
.

Online learning platform Coursera is taking a page straight out of TikTok’s playbook. The company has launched a new AI-powered feed designed to serve short-form educational content in a scrollable, personalized format, signaling a major shift in how digital learning platforms may try to keep users engaged.

The feature introduces bite-sized video lessons, clips, and explainers curated through artificial intelligence based on a user’s interests, learning habits, career goals, and previous course activity. Instead of committing to hour-long lectures or full certification programs upfront, users can now discover short educational snippets designed to make learning feel more casual, accessible, and addictive.

Users scroll through a feed of short educational videos and AI-curated learning moments covering topics ranging from coding and business to AI, productivity, data science, and personal development.

 



Addendum:

AI Budgets in Education Show No Sign of Decline — from campustechnology.com by Rhea Kelly

Key Takeaways

  • Education AI budgets are holding steady or increasing: Wasabi found that 98% of education organizations expect AI infrastructure budgets to increase or remain steady, with 46% planning increases.
  • Storage costs are the top AI implementation challenge: Half of education respondents cited data storage issues, including storage and access costs, as the No. 1 challenge for AI projects.
  • Cloud security and ROI remain pressure points: Only 47% feel confident keeping data unaltered and operational after a cyberattack, 44% lost access to public cloud data after an attack, and 37% of AI projects currently show positive ROI.
 

GenAI practice blossoms through the open exchange of insights — from timeshighereducation.com by Samuel Doherty, who is the education and innovation coordinator at the University of Newcastle in Australia
How a structured GenAI professional development series, built around practice, peer voices and multiple entry points, fosters open exchange among colleagues, universities and industry

Connect internal practice to sector-wide thinking
Whatever is happening within any single institution is only part of the picture. Effective GenAI practice grows through open exchange of insights among colleagues, universities, professional bodies and industry, and a development programme that is entirely inward-looking risks missing both useful knowledge and important shifts in expectation.

Our AI sector voices sessions aim to bring external contributors into the programme: researchers, practitioners and sector representatives working at the intersection of GenAI and higher education. The aim is to situate institutional practice within the wider conversation and to signal to staff that the institution is genuinely engaged with that conversation, not just managing it internally.

In the Australian context, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (Teqsa) people pillar positions staff as drivers, enablers, users and innovators of GenAI practice, and identifies a lack of information or understanding as one of the primary barriers to ethical and effective engagement. That framing is useful regardless of regulatory context: institutions that treat their people as active participants in shaping practice, rather than recipients of policy, are likely to develop more durable capability.

Regular, lightweight communications, a weekly community of practice update and a monthly all-staff digest can maintain momentum between sessions without adding significantly to anyone’s workload. 

 

What AI-Enabled Education Actually Looks Like When It’s Working for Workforce Students — from gettingsmart.com by Stephen Griffin

Key Points

  • Institutions can use AI to make skills, pathways, and job outcomes visible to students and employers in ways traditional transcripts cannot.
  • Academic affairs, workforce development, career services, and employers need a shared definition of readiness and competency before tools can deliver meaningful value.

The second is portable competency records. Learning and employment records — AI-enabled documentation of what a student knows and can do, expressed in language employers recognize — are the infrastructure that makes credentials legible across the education-to-employment continuum. When a student can show an employer not just “completed Supply Chain Management 101” but “demonstrated proficiency in inventory optimization, route planning, and logistics software at the industry-recognized level,” the credential stops being abstract. It becomes evidence. Building these records requires investment in tools, yes — but more importantly, it requires faculty, workforce development staff, and employer partners to agree on what competency actually looks like before the technology is ever purchased.


 

 

Autistic students who make it through college face a bigger challenge: getting jobs — from hechingerreport.org by Kelly Field
Colleges now offer career readiness classes and one-on-one coaching for students with autism

Recognizing these strengths, some major companies — including tech giants SAP and Microsoft, and financial institutions Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase — began building neurodiverse hiring programs roughly a decade ago.

Those efforts have yielded significant revenue for companies, some of them say, with EY, one of the big four accounting firms, reporting in 2023 that its neurodiverse employees have generated nearly $1 billion in business value. A study by J.P. Morgan Chase found that its autistic employees were much more productive than its neurotypical ones.

Consumer finance company Synchrony, which plans to hire 15 neurodivergent interns this year, says the program has changed how teams work across the company.


Also on a somewhat-related note and also from Kelly Field at The Hechinger Report, see:

 

Why universities must become flexible lifelong partners, not one-time providers — from timeshighereducation.com by Sankar Sivarajah
As careers become increasingly non-linear and shaped by rapid change, universities must evolve beyond traditional degree provision, says Sankar Sivarajah. Here, he outlines strategies

From programmes to learning ecosystems
These pressures point towards a broader redefinition of higher education. Rather than viewing education as a one-time experience culminating in a degree, universities increasingly need to see themselves as partners in professional development across an entire career.

This means moving from a model centred on programmes to one focused on learning ecosystems that allow individuals to enter, leave and re-engage with higher education as their needs evolve.

Business schools may be particularly well placed to lead this shift because of their close engagement with employers and their long tradition of educating professionals at different stages of their careers.

But success will depend on more than introducing new modules or certificates. Universities must confront a fundamental question. Are the systems, structures and cultures that define higher education capable of supporting genuinely flexible learning?

The sector has already embraced the language of lifelong learning – the next step is ensuring that universities themselves are built to deliver it.


From DSC:
Long-time readers of this blog have seen this graphic of mine posted over the last 12+ years:
.

.


Also relevant/see:

What if the undergraduate journey were a four-year internship? — from timeshighereducation.com by Michelle Seref
Treating work placements and co-curricular programmes as optional or supplementary misses deeper questions about whether traditional degrees prepare students for careers. Michelle Seref explains

Attending workshops or polishing a résumé in their final semester does not make students career-ready. They need to practise how to work – how to collaborate, navigate ambiguity, manage projects and apply knowledge in context – throughout their academic experience. The reality is that career readiness is not a co-curricular programme; it is an essential part of an integrated curriculum.

To be clear, employers do not expect classrooms to become training centres. What they are asking for – implicitly and explicitly – is graduates who can function in complex environments from day one. That means graduates who can work in teams, communicate professionally with stakeholders, adapt when plans change, apply theory to real constraints and learn continuously on the job.

These capabilities do not develop through passive learning. But experiential learning is often misunderstood as a single, high-impact activity: an internship, a capstone project or study abroad. In reality, its power comes from repetition and progression. One experience introduces exposure. A sequence of experiences builds competence.

We are proposing a paradigm shift: repositioning the undergraduate journey as a four-year professional internship rather than a continuation of the K-12 classroom environment. 

.
From DSC:

The problem with this innovative idea is that faculty often are not out in the “real world.” The best chance higher ed has to deliver on this idea is via the adjunct faculty members out there. Often, they are the ones practicing what they are teaching. They are constantly pulse-checking — and actively involved with — their industries and have more up-to-date, practical knowledge.

But this is a problem for traditional institutions of higher education, which have treated their adjunct faculty members poorly through the years. Adjunct faculty members hardly make minimum wage, have no benefits, no retirement plans, etc. — plus they have little to no say in faculty senates. 

Organizational change would be a requirement.

 

Words are easy to say. Examples:

  • We are the leading ____ in the Midwest/Southwest/Northwest/etc. (says who? Prove it.)
  • Our patients’ care is important to us (no, it’s not…you only care if your customers’ accounts are paid in full. If patients’ care were actually important, you would fix what’s broken.)
  • Your call is important to us (no, it’s actually not. If it were actually important to you, you would have more customer service reps working so that the wait times were either non-existent or much shorter. The truth is that you would rather cut costs/headcount and have your customers wait. Be truthful about it. Stop the B.S.)

A vast number of American corporations don’t actually care about their customers — their concern focuses solely on obtaining their customers’ money.
One of the ways this plays out is that they hide behind the labyrinths that are designed into the call pathways in their Voice Response Units (VRUs). VRUs have been abused. Corporations hide behind them. It’s hard to actually reach a person or hold a person accountable for something.

And now, with executives getting rid of entry-level jobs in customer service, they seek to cut costs further as they implement AI-based systems…which rarely give us what we’re looking for.

But even in written communications, times seem to be changing…and not for the better. I had a customer service rep write me a letter recently (regarding an incident with our daughter’s experience at a blood lab). But in the letter, she didn’t even provide her last name or a direct phone # in her correspondence. This would NEVER have happened in business letters back in the day — her last name would have been present, for sure — and likely a direct phone #. This isn’t her fault. It’s her leadership’s fault. BTW, the issue was passed along to the lab’s leadership…and she closed her ticket out. But there was no mention of an actual fix or resolution. Nice hand washing job, don’t you think?

Another case in point. This time, involving Apple. (BTW, I’ve been a long-time Apple fan…until the last several years. They have lost some of their focus on customer service.) I wanted to ask a question about a purchase that showed up on our Visa bill from apple.com/bill. Do you think I could find an 800# to talk with someone at Apple? Nope. You can try to find things via their online-based support systems, but often their documentation doesn’t match up with one’s devices. I couldn’t even use their chat feature — their systems told me that their chat feature wasn’t available (and it was 11:30am EST). 

I’m sure if you thought about it, you could come up with your own recent examples of poor customer service experiences — or examples of companies that you did business with who didn’t deliver what they said they would deliver.

The issue runs deeper than we think. It actually has to do with whether people actually care about each other or not. And here in America, actually caring about others seems to be in short supply.

 

I Was a University AI Czar. I’m Not Equipped to Teach in the Age of AI. — from jgellers.substack.com by Josh Gellers, PhD

The reason that I claim I am not well-suited to thrive as an instructor in the age of AI is because both AI Enthusiasts and AI Resisters put a lot of thought and energy into completely redesigning their classes in response to AI. This is the one takeaway that I don’t think the Exhausted Majority has fully accepted yet—to excel as a teacher in this AI era, you need to totally revise how you teach and how you assess what students learn in your classes.

I can say this much—whatever solution our industry comes up with, it’s likely to emerge from teaching and learning centers. Contrary to what Paul Schofield  wrote in the Chronicle of Higher Education, pedagogy experts are the best hope we have to equip today’s faculty with the tools required to succeed in this uncertain educational environment. As I always tell my students, “I was trained for 7 years to become a researcher and 2 days to become a teacher.” The idea that only disciplinary experts know how to teach and have nothing to learn from so-called “nonscholars” is so laughable that one has to wonder whether an AI agent jokingly wrote that sad opinion piece to troll the whole academe.

Also from Dr. Gellers, see:

The Worst AI Policy in Higher Ed
How Berkeley Law Boalt-ed From Expertise in Favor of Abstinence

Last week, one of the top law schools in the United States, the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, released its final policy on artificial intelligence, effective summer 2026. In the span of a breezy 1.5 pages, the school outlined the challenge AI poses to legal education and how it plans to address this problem. Despite these intentions, this AI policy is, in my estimation, the worst AI policy in higher education I have seen.


From AI Tutors to AI Study Mates— from drphilippahardman.substack.com by Dr Philippa Hardman
New research reveals how AI can enable real learning — not just productivity gains


.

The point isn’t that AI is inherently bad for learning — it’s that the meta-analyses showing that LLMs improve assignment and performance scores are measuring the wrong thing. They’re measuring performance with the AI present, not learning that persists once it’s gone.

.
From DSC:
Notice that when an AI-based learning system can remember what you’ve worked on and how you are doing — where you are struggling or doing well — it can have a positive impact on your longer-term learning. That, to me, is where long-term based learner profiles come in.

Later in the article, Dr. Hardman points out that “if we want to deliver AI tooling which supports substantive learning, we need to intentionally create a new category of AI tool for ‘learning at work’ which prioritises learning and development over productivity.” While I agree with that, I do wonder if businesses will care, so long as the work gets done and gets done well. But this calls into mind the word “experience” — something that traditionally has been hard fought to get in the corporate world. But the corporate realm often doesn’t like to pay for experience (beyond key AI-based jobs) when they perceive it’s getting too expensive. Ask all those 50 and over who had or have a target on their backs.

.


 
 
© 2025 | Daniel Christian