When Does a Chatbot Become More Than a Tool?

How do intelligent assistants and chatbots change the way people interact with institutions, complete everyday tasks, and decide when human involvement is still necessary?

One chatbot I became familiar with through my institution was HubSpot. It was used to help connect with prospective and incoming students by answering common questions that would otherwise be directed to already busy advisors.

Although I was not part of the team that selected the chatbot template or designed the initial interaction flow, I did have visibility into the backend process. For our purposes, it worked well. Frequently asked questions could be handled automatically, which reduced the volume of routine requests reaching staff.

When the chatbot received a question that was not stored in its knowledge base, it asked the user to provide a name and phone number so that a staff member could follow up. During off-hours, it displayed a message explaining that no one was currently available. Another useful feature was the ability for a human staff member to step into the conversation at any point.

That human handoff mattered. If someone asked, “Is this a real person?” a staff member could respond directly and add a more personal touch to the interaction. The chatbot handled predictable questions efficiently, while people remained available when the conversation became more complex or personal.

This experience showed me that a chatbot is most effective when it supports employees rather than attempting to replace them. It can handle routine tasks, extend service beyond normal business hours, and direct people toward the right resource. However, it still needs a clear escalation process for questions that require judgment, empathy, or context.

Intelligent assistants operate in a similar way, although they are often used for more personal tasks. My wife regularly uses Siri to schedule appointments and create reminders.

“Hey Siri?”

“Uh-huh?”

“Remind me on Wednesday, October 5, at 7:00 a.m. that it is our seven-year anniversary.”

“Okay, your reminder is set.”

That interaction is probably familiar to many people. I personally do not use the feature very often, other than occasionally telling Siri to mind its own business when it responds to a comment or question that was not intended for it.

That raises another issue. These systems are designed to listen for activation phrases, interpret speech, and anticipate what users may need. Their convenience depends on access to personal data, voice input, habits, and preferences.

I have little doubt that smart systems collect and process information in ways most users do not fully understand. Somewhere in the terms and conditions is likely language explaining what is collected, how it is used, and what permissions have been granted. Still, most people do not read those terms closely enough to understand the full exchange.

The convenience is clear. A user can create a reminder, ask a question, or complete a simple task without opening an application or typing anything. The tradeoff is that the system must remain attentive enough to recognize when it is being addressed, which can create uncertainty about privacy and control.

My experience with HubSpot and Siri led me to see intelligent assistants as most valuable when they are designed around clear boundaries. They should be able to handle routine requests, explain when they do not know an answer, provide a path to human assistance, and make their use of personal data understandable.

The larger question is not whether chatbots and intelligent assistants are useful. They clearly are.

The more important question is how much responsibility, access, and trust we are willing to give them in exchange for convenience.

When Good Intentions Create Bad Outcomes

Why do policies and systems created by intelligent, well-intentioned people sometimes produce consequences that are worse than the problems they were designed to solve?

That question immediately caught my attention because it points to one of the most difficult realities of complex problem-solving: good intentions do not guarantee good results. A solution may appear logical on paper, yet fail once human behavior, unintended consequences, competing incentives, and changing conditions enter the picture.

You had me at “well-educated and well-intentioned individuals often make terrible mistakes.” For a second, I thought this was going to be autobiographical. However, real-world models are what I want to discuss, and the first example that came to mind was the War on Drugs.

Sounds like a great idea, right? But what is one thing we can all agree on about our species:  We will do what we want to do. Free will in its purest form. That’s the beauty of being able to make your own unimpeded decisions. I choose to go this route, or to invest in this opportunity. Countless amounts of money have been thrown at trying to stop illegal drug trades from surfacing, but guess what? Hasn’t worked yet. Nixon thought it was a great line when declaring drug abuse as public enemy #1. And so, our country launched a campaign that removed leading cartel figures who were then replaced with others, and so on, and so on… What’s worse is that many of the products that people nowadays find themselves addicted to is sold legally! I know right!? It’s the proverbial leaking dam and not enough chewed bubblegum to plug the holes (and we all know how that story ends). We put out one fire only to have an ember create another one.

A similar idea that didn’t work out was Prohibition. Again, you will never stop people from doing what they want (or in this instance drinking what they want). Think on the crime and corruption that was documented during the 20’s and early 30’s. Or the amount of backdoor moonshine that was distributed. People didn’t suddenly stop drinking, they merely found an alternative supplier. Same concept in my prior argument. It’s Whack-A-Mole at its finest with the consequences being life or death. Replace one cartel leader and twenty more are ready to vie for the spot.

I don’t have a solution to the problem mind you, I am only pointing out the obvious. It seems we as humans have a fundamental dilemma. An itch that can never be scratched so to speak. We want more (always something more). We fail to appreciate what we have and seek new desires that are sure to fill the void. If we view human existence as a learning system, then the prior examples fall in line with the bad decisions regarding complex practices. A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley touched on this subject albeit in a fictional narrative. If you have not read it, I would recommend checking it out. The government’s intention was to create a society of humans whose loyalty to the state came before all else while also lauding the notion that everyone belonged to everyone else (which also rings of another good intention that sounds great on paper but fails when presented with reality. Can you guess what it is? Starts with an “S” and ends in “ocialism”).

In closing, and more to my point of the human dilemma, we will make mistakes and cause strife for that is in our nature. I would caution a few things to try and make the inevitable a little less frequent: 1) Think before you act, 2) establish your ethical code and/or priorities and follow them religiously, 3) plan for the future, and 4) learn from your mistakes. With a little luck, maybe we can improve our condition and turn this tragedy into a triumph. Steinbeck said it best when he stated, “and now that you don’t have to be perfect, you can be good” (East of Eden, 1952). And that’s all we need to be. Good.

Who Should Be Responsible for Policing Deepfakes?

As artificial intelligence makes manipulated video, audio, and images easier to create, who should be responsible for deciding what is authentic, misleading, or dangerous?

Should the federal government regulate synthetic media? Should technology companies identify and remove it? Or should individuals be expected to evaluate the credibility of what they see and hear for themselves?

Before exploring this topic, I understood the general idea of deepfakes but was less familiar with the artificial intelligence used to produce them or the growing difficulty of distinguishing manipulated media from authentic content. The more I read, the more apparent it became that the danger does not depend entirely on whether a fake is technically sophisticated.

The Department of Homeland Security explains that the threat of deepfakes and synthetic media comes partly from our natural inclination to believe what we see. Manipulated content does not have to be perfect to influence opinions, spread confusion, or reinforce something an audience already wants to believe.

That is what makes the issue especially concerning.

Deepfakes and shallowfakes

Deepfakes generally use artificial intelligence to create or alter audiovisual content. A person’s face, voice, expressions, or movements can be reproduced in a way that makes it appear that they said or did something that never occurred.

Shallowfakes can be much simpler. They may involve selectively edited clips, changed playback speed, misleading captions, removed context, or unrelated audio placed over an existing video.

In some ways, shallowfakes may be just as effective because they require less technical expertise and can be produced quickly. The content only needs to appear believable long enough to be shared, repeated, and accepted by part of the audience.

Without the knowledge or tools needed to distinguish authentic media from manipulated content, we are approaching a serious intersection in how we determine what is real.

The role of technology companies

Large technology companies have several advantages in addressing manipulated media. Platforms such as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, and other technology providers have the technical infrastructure needed to analyze content, identify suspicious patterns, label altered media, and limit its distribution.

They can develop detection tools, strengthen content-authentication systems, preserve information about where media originated, and provide warnings when material may have been manipulated.

However, placing too much authority in the hands of large technology companies creates its own concerns.

Do we want a private company deciding what is true, false, misleading, satirical, or politically harmful? Who determines the standards? How transparent are the detection systems? What happens when the system makes a mistake?

A company may remove harmful material, but it may also suppress legitimate journalism, satire, creative work, or political criticism. Automated systems are not free from error, bias, or the priorities of the organizations that created them.

Technology companies should therefore play an important role, but their decisions should be transparent, reviewable, and open to appeal.

The role of government

The federal government also has a legitimate interest in addressing malicious synthetic media, especially when it involves fraud, election interference, threats, impersonation, national security, or reputational harm.

Government can establish legal definitions, penalties, disclosure requirements, and protections for people who are intentionally misrepresented. It can also fund research into detection, digital authentication, and public education.

Yet government involvement creates similar concerns.

Lawmakers and public officials may have political interests of their own. A regulation intended to limit deception could be used too broadly, applied unevenly, or interpreted in a way that restricts lawful speech.

Public trust is already divided. Depending on which political party or institution delivers the message, some people will accept the government’s conclusion while others will immediately reject it.

This means that government cannot simply announce that a piece of media is false and expect the matter to be settled.

Shared responsibility

The best approach is likely one of shared responsibility.

Government should establish clear legal protections against harmful impersonation, fraud, and malicious manipulation. Technology companies should develop detection and authentication tools, label questionable content, and provide transparent enforcement processes. News organizations and educators should help people understand how synthetic media works. Individuals must also develop stronger habits of verification.

No single group should have complete control over determining truth.

The issue is too important to be left entirely to private corporations, government agencies, or individual users acting alone.

The continuing role of human judgment

My thoughts on this issue are consistent with how I approach influential media more broadly: think, reason, and make decisions according to evidence and principle rather than simply adopting the opinions of others.

That does not mean ignoring expert analysis or rejecting institutional guidance. It means resisting the impulse to believe or share something immediately because it supports an existing opinion.

Before accepting a suspicious video or recording, we should ask:

  • Where did it originate?
  • Is the complete version available?
  • Has it been reported by multiple reliable sources?
  • Does the audio match the visible movements?
  • Are there unexplained cuts, timing problems, or contextual gaps?
  • Is the content designed primarily to provoke anger or fear?
  • Is there independent evidence that the event occurred?

Even these questions will not always provide certainty, but they create a pause between exposure and belief.

That pause matters.

Podcast: Christian Nunes on Deepfakes (with Max Tegmark)

Regulation will not eliminate the technology

Regardless of how aggressively governments or companies regulate deepfakes, the technology will continue to exist. Malicious actors will find new methods, move to different platforms, and improve their ability to avoid detection.

This does not mean regulation is pointless. Laws, detection systems, and authentication tools can reduce harm and make deception more difficult. However, they cannot replace public awareness and critical thinking.

The long-term challenge is not merely detecting individual fakes. It is maintaining a society in which people still believe that reliable evidence exists.

If every image or recording can be dismissed as fake, authentic evidence can also lose its power. A person confronted with a real recording may claim that it was artificially generated. This creates what may be an even greater danger: not that everyone believes the false, but that no one believes anything.

Final thought

Deepfakes force us to reconsider how trust is created in a digital environment.

The federal government has a role in addressing criminal misuse and establishing protections. Technology companies have a role in detection, labeling, authentication, and limiting distribution. Journalists, educators, and researchers have a role in helping the public understand the technology.

Individuals also have a responsibility to slow down, verify claims, and resist sharing emotionally provocative content before determining whether it is credible.

The question is not simply who should police deepfakes.

The more difficult question is how government, technology companies, institutions, and individuals can share responsibility without giving any one group unchecked authority over what society is permitted to see and believe.

The Problem of Socrates

While we were given multiple resources to draw from, Nietzsches’ “The Problem of Socrates“, which is a piece from his book titled Twilight of the Idols, is what I would like to focus on for this discussion. I find it surprising that I have not read any of his work prior to this. I have heard of him, but my level of intrigue had apparently not peaked enough to seek out his writing on my own. Color me surprised as I started reading and found myself laughing out loud while googling the phrase, “Was Socrates profoundly ugly?” The sentence that justified such an action, you inquire. “Socrates was a clown who succeeded in making men take him seriously: what then was the matter?” A clown!? Our beloved Socrates? What could inspire such a statement? And why am I so curious as to why Nietzsche thinks of him as a clown?


If you have not already, I would suggest reading his views. What I found interesting as it relates to our topic on the development of knowledge, was Nietzsche thoughts on Socrates’ notion that, Reason = Virtue = Happiness. He stated:
“The fanaticism with which the whole of Greek thought plunges into reason, betrays a critical condition of things: men were in danger; there were only two alternatives: either perish or else be absurdly rational. The moral bias of Greek philosophy from Plato onward, is the outcome of a pathological condition, as is also its appreciation of dialectics. Reason = Virtue = Happiness, simply means: we must imitate Socrates, and confront the dark passions permanently with the light of day—the light of reason. We must at all costs be clever, precise, clear: all yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads downwards.”


If true, then it seems like much of the bedrock of Western thought was influenced by a man who waged war against all that makes us the flawed, temperamental, and beautiful creatures we are. “When a man finds it necessary, as Socrates did, to create a tyrant out of reason, there is no small danger that something else wishes to play the tyrant.” Was it all a power play for Socrates? Was his powerful intellect attempting to control, rather than enlighten? Were educational institutions founded on an ideal that reason will save our wicked souls? “To be obliged to fight the instincts—this is the formula of degeneration: as long as life is in the ascending line, happiness is the same as instinct.”

So, what do we do? In one ear, Father Socrates is whispering, “life is meant to be reasoned, calculated, and you should suppress your natural instincts. By doing so, you shall be made anew…” Meanwhile, Nietzsche is asserting that our foundational core is instinctual and that society, laws, customs, etc., have transposed our natural disposition. (So, we are basically animals thrice removed from our baser instincts? Is that what you are saying, Friedrich?).


So, how does this relate to “the construction and development of knowledge and what might be overlooked in major theories?” It doesn’t. Well, maybe a little. Suppose Nietzsche is right and that Socrates, Plato, and the foundation of Western philosophy, was based on obsessiveness with “being,” and the “fallibility of the senses,” and “reasoning our way to happiness,” and yada yada… And suppose Socrates did use dialectics as means against those who cast a condescending eye in his direction.  

“Can it be that dialectics was only a form of revenge in Socrates?” Surely not! Right…? Didn’t he say that virtue was knowledge? And isn’t the Socratic Method one we use to eliminate hypotheses while seeking truth? Or that the interaction between teacher and student resembles that of a Platonic dialogue? Oh man, surely The Knowledge Developer and Grand Reasoner himself didn’t stoop to his baser instincts and found a millennium of education out of pettiness and reprisal? Right…? Surely, we didn’t overlook that while constructing our theories! No, we wouldn’t have. We are much too calculated and reasoned to…. Oh..

How Could Extended Reality Improve Learning in Higher Education?

What happens when students can step inside a learning experience instead of only reading about it?

Extended reality, which includes virtual reality, augmented reality, mixed reality, and related immersive technologies, offers a way to make abstract or complex concepts more visible, interactive, and memorable. In higher education, this could be especially valuable in courses where students struggle to form a clear mental picture of what they are being taught.

Since working in higher education, I have personally witnessed many students struggle to understand course material or fully grasp the concept being emphasized. In many cases, the issue is not a lack of effort. The student may simply be unable to generate the mental image needed to connect the explanation to something concrete.

I have experienced this same disconnect in my own work. I might read about a complicated network structure, security control, or information technology process and still need a more experienced staff member to essentially “draw me a picture.” I needed a visual component to accompany the written explanation.

That need may decrease as someone gains experience and develops a larger reservoir of prior knowledge. However, newer learners do not yet have that reservoir. Extended reality could help fill the gap by allowing them to see, manipulate, and experience concepts that would otherwise remain abstract.

Where extended reality could help

Virtual reality and augmented reality could support higher education in several meaningful ways.

Students could explore a network architecture from inside a three-dimensional environment, observe how security controls interact, or practice responding to a simulated system failure. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics students could complete virtual laboratories that provide repeated practice without the same equipment, safety, or scheduling limitations of a physical lab.

Healthcare students could examine anatomy from multiple angles, interact with simulated patients, and practice making decisions in a controlled environment. Environmental science students could explore ecosystems, geological formations, or natural habitats that would otherwise be difficult or expensive to visit.

In each of these examples, the technology does more than add visual appeal. It helps learners connect information to experience.

Imagining the possibilities

Of course, money quickly becomes part of the conversation whenever an institution considers adopting emerging technology. Testing, training, implementation, support, and long-term maintenance would also create challenges, especially for an information technology department already managing multiple projects.

But let us assume for a moment that we have boatloads of money and a leadership team ready to invest in extended reality.

“What are some ways we could make this work, Lance?”

Glad you asked, hypothetical leadership team.

We could invest in software that supports our science, technology, engineering, and mathematics programs by making required laboratory activities available in virtual environments through headsets. Students could practice procedures, repeat experiments, and make mistakes without damaging equipment or creating a safety concern.

We could also expand the tutoring center so that online students meet tutors in a shared virtual environment rather than only through a standard video call. A virtual meeting room could make the experience feel more personal and interactive, particularly for students who rarely visit campus.

Applications such as 4D Anatomy could provide a detailed and interactive view of the human body. Tools focused on wildlife and the natural environment could allow students to examine animals, ecosystems, and field conditions in ways that are difficult to reproduce in a traditional classroom.

Combining artificial intelligence and extended reality

The greatest potential may come from combining extended reality with artificial intelligence.

In nursing and other healthcare programs, students could interact with virtual patients who respond to questions, symptoms, and treatment decisions. These simulations could help learners practice diagnostic interviews, communication, clinical judgment, and decision-making before working with actual patients.

A virtual patient could present symptoms differently each time, respond emotionally to the learner’s communication style, or require the student to reconsider an initial diagnosis. Artificial intelligence could make the experience more adaptive by changing the scenario based on the student’s actions.

This type of environment could provide safe, repeatable practice while also helping instructors evaluate how students think, communicate, and respond under pressure.

The same approach could be applied beyond healthcare. A cybersecurity student might interact with an artificially generated security incident. A business student could negotiate with a simulated client. A teacher candidate could practice responding to classroom behavior in a virtual setting.

The practical barriers

Some of these ideas may still be pipe dreams for smaller institutions, but obtaining a limited number of virtual reality headsets is not entirely outside the realm of possibility.

The larger challenge may be convincing faculty members to learn and use the technology while they are already overwhelmed with existing responsibilities. Buying the equipment is only the beginning. The institution would also need to consider:

  • Faculty training and instructional support
  • Accessibility and accommodation needs
  • Technical support and equipment management
  • Compatibility with existing courses and systems
  • Student privacy and data collection
  • Time required to redesign learning activities
  • Evidence that the technology improves learning

A headset alone does not create an effective educational experience. The technology must be connected to a clear learning objective and integrated intentionally into the course.

Faculty members should not be expected to adopt extended reality simply because it is new. They need time, examples, technical support, and opportunities to experiment without fear of failure.

Starting with a pilot

A realistic approach would be to begin with a small pilot in one or two programs where the instructional need is clear.

For example, the institution could introduce virtual anatomy activities in nursing or a small set of virtual laboratory experiences in a science course. Faculty and students could then provide feedback on usability, engagement, accessibility, and learning outcomes.

The pilot should answer practical questions:

  • Did the technology help students understand the concept?
  • Did it improve performance or retention?
  • Was it easy enough for faculty and students to use?
  • Did technical problems interfere with learning?
  • Was the benefit worth the cost and effort?
  • What changes would be needed before expanding the program?

This would allow the institution to evaluate the instructional value before committing to a larger rollout.

Final thought

Extended reality could be especially valuable when learners need more than written explanations or static images. It can make invisible systems visible, allow students to practice difficult procedures, and create experiences that would otherwise be unsafe, expensive, or impossible.

The technology should not replace effective teaching. It should strengthen it.

The real question is not whether virtual reality or augmented reality looks impressive. It is whether these tools help students understand, practice, and apply what they are learning more effectively.

For higher education, that potential is worth exploring, even if the first step is only one headset, one course, and one carefully designed pilot.

What Do We Still Not Understand About Learning?

While reading The Book of Problems, one short passage by Federico Mayor stood out to me because of how directly it addresses the relationship between learning, technology, reflection, and personal knowledge.

The methodology regarding learning to know and to do is widely developed. Teachers all around the world have a treasure of experience and best practices in these fields. However, we know far less about learning to be, to transform information into personal knowledge, to reflect and to elaborate one’s own answers, to behave according to one’s own conclusions elaborated from thought.

Such is, from my point of view, the widening vacuum in current learning, particularly in the so-called developed countries. Communication tools are available in excess, yet learners are too often mere receptors of information, as they have no time to think, to argue in favour of their own ideas. They are spectators, not authors. As José Saramago, the Literature Nobel Prize Laureate, puts it: “A moment will come when technology will score 100 versus thinking 0.”

-Federico Mayor

Mayor argues that education has developed strong methods for teaching people how to know and how to do. Teachers around the world have accumulated extensive experience in helping learners acquire information, master skills, and complete tasks. However, he suggests that we know far less about how to help people learn to be, transform information into personal knowledge, reflect deeply, and form conclusions based on their own reasoning.

His concern is that modern learners are surrounded by communication tools but are too often positioned as receivers of information rather than active thinkers. They consume content, but they are not always given the time or space to question it, defend their own ideas, or determine what it means for their lives. In Mayor’s words, they become spectators rather than authors.

This raises a central question: Are we learning to think for ourselves, or are we merely becoming more efficient consumers of information?

Mayor’s argument is powerful because it suggests that many people have not taken the time to understand themselves in relation to their ethical beliefs, values, and personal responsibilities. We consume information from countless technological sources and often mistake access to data for knowledge or wisdom.

The fact that information is available does not mean it has been understood. We can read, watch, scroll, save, share, and repeat ideas without ever examining whether they align with what we truly believe. Information enters our awareness, but it may never become part of our personal understanding.

At the same time, the responsibility does not rest entirely with the individual. Our society is structured around constant consumption. We are repeatedly encouraged to view wants as needs and to pursue the next product, experience, platform, or piece of information. The message is often some variation of “more is better,” even when more leaves us distracted, overwhelmed, and less certain about what actually matters.

This is where Mayor’s argument connects with Martin Heidegger’s The Question Concerning Technology. Heidegger challenges the view that technology is merely a neutral instrument or a simple means to an end. He argues that technology also shapes how we view the world. It encourages us to see people, nature, time, and information as resources to be collected, organized, stored, and used.

Mayor makes a similar point when he describes human beings as spectators rather than authors. Another way of stating this would be that we have become takers rather than givers. We take in information but often fail to reflect on how it shapes our beliefs, values, and actions.

The introspective quality that distinguishes human beings seems unable to keep pace with the speed of technological change. We move quickly from one message, video, headline, or notification to another. As a result, it becomes difficult to determine what we truly need, what we merely want, and what we actually believe.

There is often very little time to pause and simply think.

So, take a moment.

Breathe deeply. Pause. Release the breath. Then do it again.

Notice what happens. Your heart rate may slow. The tension in your face may relax. You may become aware of sounds, thoughts, or details that would otherwise have escaped your attention.

In that quieter state, consider the question: What do I truly believe?

That question requires introspection. It asks us to examine our experiences, assumptions, values, and conclusions. We gather observations from our own lives, question their meaning, and attempt to form an understanding that feels true and defensible.

This process contains elements of both inductive and deductive reasoning. We may begin with individual experiences and work toward a broader conclusion. We may also begin with a belief or principle and test whether our actions and experiences remain consistent with it.

Mayor’s warning, attributed to José Saramago, is that a time may come when technology scores one hundred while thinking scores zero. That statement is presented as a warning rather than a certainty, but it describes a possible future if society continues to value speed, consumption, and convenience more than reflection.

At present, the argument is inductive. It is based on observable patterns in how people interact with technology and information. However, it could become a more certain conclusion if we fail to pause, examine our habits, and learn how to simply be.

Heidegger believed that art might provide one possible response to this problem. Art requires the viewer to slow down, observe, interpret, and reflect on what is being revealed. It does not always offer a single answer. Instead, it asks something of the person experiencing it.

Nature can provide a similar opportunity for reflection. A large oak tree begins as an acorn and develops through a process of growth, time, and interaction with its environment. It gives shade, shelter, oxygen, and life. This process differs from the impulse to extract, consume, and move immediately to the next thing.

Both art and nature invite us to experience the world differently. They encourage intentionality rather than constant consumption. They create space for observation, interpretation, and thought.

Inductive reasoning also depends on this kind of openness. It requires us to examine what we observe, consider different possibilities, and remain willing to revise our conclusions. Thinking must come before certainty.

Mayor’s reasoning may be inductive, but he has laid the foundation for a troubling conclusion. If we continue consuming information without reflecting on it, technology may increasingly shape our beliefs before we have taken the time to form them for ourselves.

The challenge, then, is not to reject technology. It is to resist becoming passive in our relationship with it.

We must learn to pause, question, interpret, and create. We must become authors of our own understanding rather than spectators of information produced by others.

The question is not whether technology will continue to advance. It will.

The more important question is whether our capacity for thought, reflection, and personal meaning will advance with it.

View The Book of Problems