For higher education to remain relevant, curricula must evolve. Here are some overarching recommendations for directions in higher education to bridge the skills gaps between universities and workplaces:
AI ethics and safety: Prepare students to navigate issues of fairness, bias, privacy, and societal impact.
Tackling complex questions: Emphasize open-ended challenges that blend structured and unstructured skills and reduce reliance on standardized tests and repetitive drills.
Critical thinking: Develop new assessments for judgment, creativity, and metacognition—essential to supervise AI outputs.
Human-AI synergy: Embed AI fluency across all disciplines, encouraging students to find the niches where human value is maximized.
Industry connection: Maintain close industry partnerships and collaborations including open innovation opportunities and collective intelligence approaches (Bharwaney & Sleeva, 2024).
Experiential learning and communities of practice are central to this vision. Internships, simulations, and cross-disciplinary projects can help students practice human-AI collaboration, resilience, and decision-making in environments that mirror the workplace’s ambiguity and complexity.
Universities that condemn the use of AI by students risk isolating themselves from the realities of today’s workplace, where interns and new hires are expected to be or quickly become adept at using AI for routine tasks and complex projects.
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.
We welcome back Sabastian Niles, President and Chief Legal Officer at Salesforce, to discuss his recent “Open Letter to Law Firms.” As the legal industry hits a critical inflection point, Sabastian argues that the era of “AI theater” and small-scale pilots is over.
The conversation dives deep into the Innovator’s Dilemma facing law firms, the shift toward agentic AI, and how firms must reimagine their business models to remain competitive. Sabastian highlights that legal professionals are uniquely positioned to lead the charge in trusted AI transformation, provided they embrace transparency, data integration, and shared efficiency gains with their clients.
Three Realities for the Modern Legal Firm To lead in this landscape, there are three realities every firm leader must understand:
Competition is intensifying: …
Client expectations will reshape the market: Clients are no longer asking whether firms use AI. Rather, they’re expecting to see the benefits of that transformation passed directly to them. They expect more for less but are not simply seeking lower costs – they want more insight, more speed, and more value for every dollar of their budget. And law firms, which operate at the center of data, ethics, and risk, have outsized influence over the structure and deployment of trusted AI across all industries. Some clients, like Salesforce, are even creating agentic tools to improve the law firm’s experience when working with clients. …
Unified client intelligence is at the heart of legal strategy: …
Are AI First Firms a Threat To Biglaw? — from legallydisrupted.com by Zach Abramowitz and Logan Brown Episode 49 features AI first law firm founder Logan Brown
Is Big Law about to become the Yellow Pages? Hey, I didn’t say it, but ex-Cooley lawyer turned AI first law firm Logan Brown did. The question is do I agree?
.
Instead of the traditional billable hour, they charge flat fees like $100 for a contract review or $50 to ask a lawyer a quick question via chat. She’s already got over 40 attorneys on the platform. And in a departure from the traditional partnership track, she actually chose to raise venture capital so she could scale the firm like a tech company and tackle the access-to-justice gap.
From DSC: LOVE to hear anything and everything regarding efforts to address the access-to-justice gap here in the United States!!! Along these lines, also see:
“Legal services are out of reach for many people and small businesses, and the gap is widening,” Anthropic said in its announcement. “We’re working with the Free Law Project, Justice Technology Association and other legal aid and public service organizations to help make legal services more affordable and available.”
That makes this the first time that a leading AI company is explicitly naming access to justice as a foundational pillar, JTA says, with Anthropic positioning the initiative as “investing in the premise that AI should expand access to justice — making legal services more affordable and available.”
What AI hallucinations in law actually are
In a legal context, AI hallucinations are one of two things. They’re either citations to cases or statutes that don’t exist, or citations to real authorities for propositions those authorities don’t actually support.
The first kind is the one making headlines. A lawyer or pro se litigant uses a general-purpose chatbot like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Copilot, or Grok to help draft a brief. The model, predicting the statistically likely next word, decides a citation belongs in a particular spot, and produces one. The reporter might be real. The volume number might fall within the right range. The Bluebook formatting is often better than what most associates produce. The case itself just doesn’t exist.
The second kind is older than AI. Lawyers have always occasionally cited a case for a proposition that the case doesn’t stand for. AI has made this kind of error easier to commit and easier to catch.
A dangerous mind — from by Jordan Furlong Generative AI is a tireless genius with no boundaries. Use it carelessly, and it can usurp your voice, overwrite your ideas, and steal your originality. Make sure you safeguard your capacity to think.
Don’t let the genius do the hard work for you. The more incisive and unique your own thinking — the more you battle and struggle and eventually succeed in getting your ideas and insights out — the more you can benefit from the AI’s complementary improvements. The great irony of Gen AI is that it actually makes your own cognitive processes your most valuable asset.
So safeguard your mind. Defend your right to think as only you can. And if you don’t want AI to replace you, then don’t send it a written invitation.
The pilot phase is over. After two years of experimentation for legal departments, 2026 will be the year AI moves from “interesting tool” to “operational infrastructure,” whether they’re ready or not. We surveyed predictions from Gartner, Forrester, McKinsey, and other leading legal tech analysts to identify where expert consensus is forming. The implications for AI governance, outside counsel relationships, and regulatory compliance are significant.
23 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but not everything is constructive. 24 No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.
Lawless political violence landed on Silicon Valley’s doorstep this month when an attacker hurled a Molotov cocktail at the San Francisco compound of Sam Altman, OpenAI’s chief executive. The incident was a disturbing sign that simmering public anger about A.I. is spilling out of polling data and social media posts and into the real world.
The attack shook many tech employees, who in quiet conversations about safety wondered whether this was a watershed moment for the industry. I believe it should be — the whole thing is disturbing and jarring, but I’m hopeful it will change how some tech leaders deal with the societal consequences of their success.
…
If these companies sold food, cars, medicine or any other consumer goods, their products would almost certainly be recalled while federal regulators investigated the allegations.
…
You would think an industry creating this kind of outrage would reflect or recalibrate. Business experts teach us that companies facing customer backlash should acknowledge the failure, change their approach and earn back public trust. But the titans of tech no longer seem interested in convincing the public.
The foundation of Silicon Valley’s appeal has always been the implicit promise that great technology serves you, and that the people behind it understand your problems and want to solve them. That promise is starting to feel broken. Fixing it requires something much of Silicon Valley has forgotten how to do: listen and learn.
A Molotov cocktail is the absolute wrong way to send a message to tech. Its leaders need to hear it anyway.
The headline number: About 60% of 18-to-22-year-olds are engaging in sports betting, a figure that climbs to two-thirds among college students specifically, according to an NCAA-commissioned study.
“It’s sort of a learned behavior for them at a very young age,” Clint Hangebrauck, the NCAA’s managing director of enterprise risk management, told us on the latest episode ofFuture U.“I do think this could be the next big public health crisis that we’re facing as a country and particularly within higher ed.”
College-age individuals are 3x more likely to develop problematic gambling behaviors than the general population. Gambling often co-exists with other behaviors now prevalent in colleges, such as sleeplessness, binge drinking, drug use, anxiety and depression.
Gambling among college students isn’t confined to athletes. Rather, it’s embedded across campus life, and with athletes often most visible in Division III, where oversight is lighter. Gambling often coexists with—and can exacerbate—other student challenges, from mental health struggles to substance use. If this is the next public health issue on campus, it’s arriving without the same level of attention.
From DSC: I don’t mean to be self-righteous here. But shame on the older adults who are promoting gambling in any fashion — marketing, advertising, sales, and/or whatever. It’s a cancer in our society, and it’s impacting our youth in a big way (and also older folks as well). I’m not a gambler, but I’m well acquainted with weakness. And the Bible confirms that we all are acquainted with weakness:
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
The adults out there know it. We are well acquainted with our sins and shortcomings.
Parents want the best for their kids. They don’t want dangerous habits being formed in their children. “Coping skills” that are majorly busted, and can lead to incredibly negative events. And the parents don’t want these habits to be formed at colleges and universities across the nation.
I wish those involved with promoting gambling could be at the dinner tables, or in the bedrooms, or in the living rooms, or in the vehicles out there when a spouse finds out that the other spouse (or significant other) has gambled away a significant amount of the couple’s savings. They no longer have rainy-day funds. They can no longer pay their bills. They no longer have the college funds for their other kids. Emotions erupt, fights begin. Relationships are threatened — and divorces sometimes occur because of this issue/habit.
So if you are involved with promoting gambling, consider reading this article from Jeff Selingo…then go take a long look in the mirror.
5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.
John (The Baptist) Testifies About Jesus
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Jesus Predicts His Death a Third Time
17 Now Jesus was going up to Jerusalem. On the way, he took the Twelve aside and said to them, 18 “We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19 and will hand him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!”
As both an attorney and educator who has spent more than eight years researching, teaching, presenting, and writing about AI, I have worked with schools across K–12 and higher education that are navigating these exact questions. The legal implications of AI are not barriers to innovation, but I consider them to serve as guardrails that assist schools with adopting technology responsibly. The key is protecting students, educators, and institutions and staying informed. Understanding the legal landscape and any potential legal implications as a result of the use of AI in classrooms helps schools move forward with confidence rather than hesitation.
Sections of Rachelle’s posting include:
Why AI and the Law Matter in Education
Key Laws That Shape AI Use in Schools
Data Privacy and Vendor Responsibility
Transparency Builds Trust With Students and Families
Accessibility, Equity, and Emerging Legal Considerations
Teaching Digital Citizenship With AI Literacy
Supporting Schools and Organizations Through AI and Legal Guidance
3 You will keep in perfect peace those whose minds are steadfast, because they trust in you. 4 Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord himself, is the Rock eternal.
5 In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
A Los Angeles jury found social media giant Meta and video platform YouTube negligent in a landmark trial, awarding $3 million in compensation to a young woman who alleged she had become addicted to the companies’ platforms as a child.
The verdict came at the end of a month-long trial that featured testimony by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and a day after a jury in New Mexico ordered Meta to pay $375 million in penalties for endangering children. The twin verdicts are signs that legal protections which for decades made tech companies seem almost impervious are beginning to crack, as lawyers accuse the platforms of putting addictive or otherwise harmful features into their platforms.
With the armor of Silicon Valley companies fractured, they will now have to size up their appetite for future courtroom battles. There are thousands more lawsuits waiting to be heard, with young internet users, parents, school districts and state attorneys general all seeking to hold the industry accountable.
5 For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; 6 and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; 7 and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. 8 For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 I proclaim your saving acts in the great assembly;
I do not seal my lips, Lord,
as you know.
10 I do not hide your righteousness in my heart;
I speak of your faithfulness and your saving help.
I do not conceal your love and your faithfulness
from the great assembly.
11 Do not withhold your mercy from me, Lord;
may your love and faithfulness always protect me.
The answers were frequently indistinguishable across different models by different companies that have different architectures and use different training data. The metaphors, imagery, word choices, sentence structures — even punctuation — often converged. Jiang’s team called this phenomenon “inter-model homogeneity” and quantified the overlaps and similarities. To drive the point home, Jiang titled her paper, the “Artificial Hivemind.” The study won a best paper award at the annual conference on Neural Information Processing Systems in December 2025, one of the premier gatherings for AI research.
AI Has No Moral Compass. Do You? — from michelleweise.substack.com by Michelle Weise & Dana Walsh Why the Age of AI Demands We Take Character Formation Seriously
Here’s something to chew on:
Anthropic, the company behind Claude — a chatbot used by 30 million users per month — has exactly one person (whom we know of) working on AI ethics. One. A young Scottish philosopher is doing the vital work of training a large language model to discern right from wrong.
I don’t say this to shame Anthropic. In fact, Anthropic appears to be the only company (that we know of) being explicit about the moral foundations and reasoning of its chatbot. Hundreds of millions of users worldwide are leveraging tools from other LLMs that do not appear to have an explicit moral compass being cultivated from within.
I raise this because this is yet another example of where we are: extraordinary technical power advancing without an equally strong moral infrastructure to support it.
Why do we keep producing people who are skilled but not wise?
Department of Labor releases AI Literacy Framework: The framework defines AI literacy as competencies for using and evaluating AI responsibly, with a primary focus on generative AI in the workplace.
Framework outlines five core AI literacy areas: These include understanding AI principles, exploring real-world uses, directing AI effectively, evaluating AI outputs, and using AI responsibly.
Guidance for workforce and education systems: The framework also provides training principles and recommendations for workers, employers, education providers, and government agencies to expand AI education and training.
4 You have laid down precepts
that are to be fully obeyed.
5 Oh, that my ways were steadfast
in obeying your decrees!
6 Then I would not be put to shame
when I consider all your commands.
8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
4 Sing the praises of the Lord, you his faithful people;
praise his holy name.
5 For his anger lasts only a moment,
but his favor lasts a lifetime;
weeping may stay for the night,
but rejoicing comes in the morning.
