Optimists’ Creed: Brave New Cyberlearning, Evolving Utopias (Circa 2041)



This essay imagines the role that artificial intelligence innovations play in the integrated living, learning and research environments of 2041. Here, in 2041, in the context of increasingly complex wicked challenges, whose solutions by their very nature continue to evade even the most capable experts, society and technology have co-evolved to embrace cyberlearning as an essential tool for envisioning and refining utopias–non-existent societies described in considerable detail. Our society appreciates that evolving these utopias is critical to creating and resolving wicked challenges and to better understanding how to create a world in which we are actively “learning to be” – deeply engaged in intrinsically motivating experiences that empower each of us to reach our full potential. Since 2015, Artificial Intelligence in Education (AIED) has transitioned from what was primarily a research endeavour, with educational impact involving millions of user/learners, to serving, now, as a core contributor to democratizing learning (Dewey 2004) and active citizenship for all (billions of learners throughout their lives). An expansive experiential super computing cyberlearning environment, we affectionately call the “Holodeck,” supports transdisciplinary collaboration and integrated education, research, and innovation, providing a networked software/hardware infrastructure that synthesizes visual, audio, physical, social, and societal components. The Holodeck’s large-scale integration of learning, research, and innovation, through real-world problem solving and teaching others what you have learned, effectively creates a global meritocratic network with the potential to resolve society’s wicked challenges while empowering every citizen to realize her or his full potential.


Cyberlearning Passion based learning Creativity Wicked problems Artificial intelligence Education 



We are grateful to the entire NYU HoloDeck team for their involvement in advancing the rich array of technologies and experiences that are core to realizing and evolving the promise of an advanced experiential super computer.


  1. (PISA), P.f.I.S.A.(2012) Selected Findings from PISA 2012.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, D. (2011). Deep play. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Annan, K. A., & Unies, N. (2000). We the peoples: the role of the United Nations in the 21st century. New York: United Nations, Department of Public Information.Google Scholar
  5. Arroyo, I., Cooper, D. G., Burleson, W. Woolf, B. P., Muldner K., & Christopherson, R.(2009). Emotion sensors go to school. InAIED, 200, 17-24. Google Scholar
  6. Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Association, C.R. (2003). Grand research challenges in information systems. in A conference Series on Grand Research Challenges in Computer Science and Engineering.Google Scholar
  8. BeingThere Center. (2015); Available from: <span style = “font-size:12.0 ptAvailable from: mso-bidi-language:AR-SA”>http://beingthere.web.unc.edu/.
  9. Berenfeld, B. (1996). Linking students to the infosphere. THE Journal (Technological Horizons In Education), 23(9), 76.Google Scholar
  10. Brockman, J. (2007). The next fifty years: Science in the first half of the twenty-first century. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  11. Burak, A., Keylor, E., & Sweeney, T. (2005). PeaceMaker: A video game to teach peace. In M. Maybury, O. Stock, & W. Wahlster (Eds.), Intelligent Technologies for Interactive Entertainment (pp. 307–310). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  12. Burleigh, S., et al. (2003). Delay-tolerant networking: an approach to interplanetary internet. IEEE Communications Magazine, 41(6), 128–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burleson, W. (2005). Developing creativity, motivation, and self-actualization with learning systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 63(4), 436–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. CISCO. 2011; Available from: <span style = “font-size:12.0 ptAvailable from: mso-bidi-language:AR-SA”>http://www.iotsworldcongress.com/documents/4643185/3e968a44-2d12-4b73-9691-17ec508ff67b.
  15. Dewey, J. (2004). Democracy and education. New York: Courier Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Duderstadt, J. J. (2010). Engineering for a changing world, in Holistic Engineering Education (pp. 17–35). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gurry, F., et al. (2014). World Intellectual Property Indicators. Switzerland: World Intellectual Property Organization.Google Scholar
  18. Faure, E. (1972), Learning to be: The world of education today and tomorrow. Paris: Unesco.Google Scholar
  19. Ferrucci, D. A., et al. (2013). Watson: beyond jeopardy! Artificial Intelligence, 199, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Feynman, R. P. (1955). The value of science. Engineering and Science, 19(3), 13–15.Google Scholar
  21. Foundation, N.S. (2014). National science foundation: investing in science, engineering, and education for the nations future: strategic plan, 2014–2018.Google Scholar
  22. Gilpin, K. W., & Rus, D (2012). What’s in the bag: A distributed approach to 3d shape duplication with modular robots. Robotics Science and Systems, 2012, 89–96.Google Scholar
  23. Hiemstra, G. (1999). The End of retirement is near, in futurist. http://www.futurist.com/articles-archive/the-end-of-retirement-is-near/.
  24. Hirsch, W.Z. and L. Weber (2002) As the walls of academia are tumbling down. Economica Limited.Google Scholar
  25. Hodges, K. V. (2012). Solving complex problems. Science, 338(6111), 1164–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ishii, H., et al. (2004). Bringing clay and sand into digital design—continuous tangible user interfaces. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 287–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kay, A. C. (1991). Computers, networks and education. Scientific American, 265(3), 138–148.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kuchera-Morin, J., et al. (2014). Immersive full-surround multi-user system design. Computers & Graphics, 40, 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lahey, B., et al. (2008) Integrating video games and robotic play in physical environments. in Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Video games. ACM.Google Scholar
  30. Levin, K., et al. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45(2), 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lewis, D. (1977). Possible-world semantics for counterfactual logics: A rejoinder. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 6(1), 359–363.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. Mahoney, D., et al. (2014). Development of a responsive emotive sensing system (DRESS) to aid persons with dementia dress independently. Gerontechnology, 13(2), 259.Google Scholar
  33. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  34. Moher, T. (2006).Embedded phenomena: supporting science learning with classroom-sized distributed simulations. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM.Google Scholar
  35. Nations, U. (2015). UN report, millennium development goals. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf.
  36. NYU-X. 2015; Available from: <span style = “font-size:12.0 ptAvailable from: mso-bidi-language:AR-SA”>http://www.nyu-x.org.
  37. Papadopoulos, C., et al. (2015). The Reality Deck–an Immersive Gigapixel Display. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 35(1), 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. Basic books, Inc, New York.Google Scholar
  39. Rashid, O., et al. (2006). PAC-LAN: mixed-reality gaming with RFID-enabled mobile phones. Computers in Entertainment (CIE), 4(4), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raskar, R., et al. (1998) The office of the future: A unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. in Proceedings of the 25th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques. ACM.Google Scholar
  41. Resnick, M., Myers, B., Nakakoji, K., Shneiderman, B., Pausch, R., Selker, T, & Eisenberg, M (2005). Design principles for tools to support creative thinking. Report of Workshop on Creativity Support Tools, http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/CST/report.html
  42. Resnick, M., et al. (2009). Scratch: programming for all. Communications of the ACM, 52(11), 60–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1974). Wicked problems. Man-Made Futures, 26(1), 272–280.Google Scholar
  44. Rossignac, J., Allen, M., Book,W.J., Glezer, A., Ebert-Uphoff, I., Shaw, C., Rosen,D., et al. (2003). Finger sculpting with digital clay: 3d shape input and output through a computer-controlled real surface. In Shape Modeling International (pp. 229-231). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer SocietyGoogle Scholar
  45. Sagan, C. (1985). Contact: a novel. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  46. Shneiderman, B. (2003). Leonardo’s laptop: human needs and the new computing technologies. Cambridge: Mit Press.Google Scholar
  47. Stevens, R., & Bransford, J. (2007). The LIFE Center’s lifelong and lifewide diagram. Learning in and out of school in diverse environments: Life-long, life-wide, life-deep. Seattle: University of Washington Center for Multicultural Education.Google Scholar
  48. Theater, A.D. (2015); Available from: <span style = “font-size:12.0 ptAvailable from: mso-bidi-language:AR-SA”>http://www.asu.edu/feature/includes/spring05/readmore/dt.html.
  49. Tripathi, P. and W. Burleson (2012). Predicting creativity in the wild: Experience sample and sociometric modeling of teams. in Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM.Google Scholar
  50. Waern, A., M. Montola, and J. Stenros (2009). The three-sixty illusion: designing for immersion in pervasive games. in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM.Google Scholar
  51. Wikipedia. Utopia (2015). Available from: <span style = “font-size:10.0 ptAvailable from: mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”“>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia%3Cspan style = “font-size:10.0 pt.
  52. Woolf, B. P. (2010). A roadmap for education technology. Report of the Computing Research Association, http://cra.org/ccc/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2015/08/GROE-Roadmap-for-Education-Technology-Final-Report.pdf

Copyright information

© International Artificial Intelligence in Education Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.New York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations