The AI systems of 2024 were tools, limited to tasks like writing essays or analyzing data. Artificial General Intelligence is different. The AGI systems launching now can reason, learn, and solve problems across all domains, at or above human level. If universities cannot articulate in detail how their faculty exceeds AGI capabilities, what value are they offering to tuition-paying students? Traditional arguments about the value of a college education collapse without faculty expertise.
Marketing that touts traditional benefits of a university education while ignoring AGI actively harms the sector, suggesting that higher education either fails to grasp the AGI revolution or is trying to hide from it. Universities must instead lead with brutal honesty: students should pay precisely for the “last mile” of human knowledge that surpasses AGI’s capabilities. The true value of a university lies in faculty who can offer advanced education, mentorship, and inspiration at the highest level, while every other aspect of college life becomes a secondary consideration that no longer justifies tuition on its own.
Immediate Faculty and Dean Action Required
Every faculty member should begin to write a detailed memo specifying the following: “What specific knowledge do I possess that AGI does not? What unique insights or capabilities can I offer that exceed AGI systems? Which students, and in which topics, would benefit enough to pay to learn from me and why?” Faculty who cannot produce this memo with concrete, defensible answers have no place in the institution. There is no middle ground.
Every dean must immediately audit their course catalog against one criterion: what advanced knowledge or skills does this course offer that AGI cannot replicate? Each course must demonstrate specific knowledge transfer or skill development that exceeds AGI capabilities. It will become obvious that the highest value courses are those aligned with specific faculty expertise. General education courses focused on basic knowledge transfer become indefensible. If the information is general enough to be called “general education,” AGI can deliver it more effectively than any human instructor. This will eliminate most of the current curriculum.
Universities will retain faculty in three categories: those advancing original research beyond AGI capabilities, those who teach the use of advanced equipment and sophisticated physical skills, and those handling previously undiscovered source materials or developing novel interpretations that outstrip AGI’s analysis. In the sciences, this means laboratory-based faculty who validate AGI-generated research proposals and offer advanced hands-on training with advanced equipment. In engineering and the arts, it’s faculty who guide students in high-level physical manipulation, augmented by AI tools. In the humanities, it’s scholars working with newly discovered primary sources, untranslated manuscripts, or archaeological evidence not yet processed by AI, as well as those creating fundamentally new interpretive frameworks that transcend AGI’s pattern-recognition capacities.
The curriculum narrows dramatically. Most lecture courses disappear. What remains are advanced research seminars where faculty share findings from new source materials or original experiments, intensive laboratory and studio sessions for hands-on skills, and research validation practicums where students learn to test AGI hypotheses. This represents a 60-70% reduction in current faculty positions, with remaining roles requiring fundamentally different capabilities than traditional academic work.
by Hollis Robbins, Anecdotal Value | Read more:
Image: uncredited
[ed. Sorry... if by chance higher education does eventually trend this way (and we allow it to happen) then humanity will truly be screwed. We could apply this metric to anything not smarter than AI (parenting?). If you want to reduce the value of higher education to simple knowledge transfer then this is your template - for producing student robots. None of the joy (and sharing) of discoveries, growing into intellectual maturity, developing various mentorships, and just learning how to enjoy learning for learning's sake. One thing I can agree with is that it will likely make most administrative jobs irrelevant, which I view as a positive. Bloated, entrenched, obstructive, and soul-killing... Low hanging fruit. We need to not lose sight of what makes learning and humans important, otherwise we're just ceding our humananity (and development) to AI and hastening our irrelevance. See also: AI and the Last Mile; and AI in the Last Mile 2]
"The dominance of STEM-thinking has left so many of us hollow inside. In a world of intense rationality and digitization, people’s inner lives are gradually destroyed. They are hungry for something deeper, holistic, and more vital than data manipulation can deliver. ~ Ted Gioia
