“Are we not, finally, in that so-often-promised liminal space between the ‘old ways’ and those of an imminent and novel future?” (Knox, 2022, S. 207)

Abstract

The integration of AI into open education evokes the dual response of wonder-panic, which refers to the simultaneous experience of awe and fear when encountering a technology as transformative and potentially disruptive as AI. It also prescribes two dominant attitudes associated with open education: does AI represent the fulfilment of “the dream of education” (Wulf, 2003) for a set of utopian ideals; or the ultimate instrumentalisation of human capital for the sake of economic productivity?

This paper examines wonder-panic as a heuristic for fostering constructive stakeholder dialogue on AI in open education. We explore the philosophical roots of wonder-panic, linking it to the sublime, and highlight ethical, epistemic, and operational tensions in AI adoption to guide reflective practices in open education.

Introduction

Does AI mark another hype cycle (Floridi, 2024) or an educational tool to enhance resource creation and sharing ? It is paradigmatic of our current context that there is little reflection on how to learn from the numerous past initiatives and projects to open up education (Peter & Deimann, 2013). This paper explores whether the wonder-panic phenomenon — where awe and fear coexist — can foster balanced engagement with the promises and challenges of AI in open education.

Against the backdrop of multiple global political, social and environmental crises, the stakes are increasingly high. AI companies face ethical scrutiny, while public discourse oversimplifies its technological complexity (Benjamin, 2024). Many now ask whether AI represents the final closure of the possibility of progress as human labour and creativity are fully captured and mechanised by venture capitalism. This contrasts with the more optimistic view that AI offers us a paradigm shift that can bring about not only innovation in learning and working practices, but also a vision of humanity finally liberated from economic inequality and political instability. Embracing AI in pursuit of such a vision requires a reimagining of educational practices.

Defining Wonder-Panic

Wonder-panic is not a singular emotion but a complex and dialectical state in which the mind is both captivated and unsettled by a powerful, transformative dynamic. Warburton’s (2023) short film The Wizard of AI, elegantly articulates wonder-panic as a dual experience of awe at the possibilities of AI and fear of its potential disruption. Societal reactions to new technologies often fall into utopian or dystopian discourses (Mamlok, 2024), and as Brevini (2020) argues utopian views use myths and rhetoric to legitimise the development of AI.

Philosophical accounts of the sublime shed light on the power of wonder-panic (Morley, 2021). Kant (1790) viewed the sublime as a confrontation with nature’s overwhelming power, where human reason meets or transcends its limits. This confrontation fosters a sense of moral agency, as individuals assert their autonomy in response to existential challenges. In contrast, his contemporary Burke (1757) saw the sublime as a source of paralysing terror in the experience of grandeur. Furthermore, the experience of the sublime can be transformative. When we encounter the limits of our experience, our subjectivity is also challenged and may evolve.

Wonder-panic arises from simultaneous awe and fear when encountering the extraordinary or incomprehensible. Applying this heuristic to open education allows for a dynamic examination of AI’s impact, prompting stakeholders to reflect on both the aspirational and cautionary aspects of technology adoption (Mosco, 2005). Wonder-panic reflects shifts between AI’s transformative promise and existential disruption. In a similar vein, we use wonder-panic as a heuristic tool for understanding and managing the multifaceted reactions AI evokes among stakeholders. In this view, wonder-panic serves not as a transient, contradictory reaction but as a dynamic process that guides the ethical and practical integration of AI into open educational practices.

Wonder and Panic in AI-Driven Open Education

The emergence of groups for and against the use of AI to support open education reflects historical trends in the discourse, including debates about the meaning and ideological purity of “open”; the role of commercial interests; business models; innovation; the relationship to the labour market; and so on. As the open education movement has grown and diversified, so have the self-proclaimed boundaries in ideology and discourse.

Some (e.g. Wiley, 2024; Downes, 2024) see in AI the potential fulfilment of the promise of OER, bringing us closer to realising the "dream of education" (Wulf, 2003). Others see the inexorable march of Big Tech and the devaluing of pedagogical practice (Ross, 2024). Increasingly, the different sides of the debate are polarised. The wonder-panic phenomenon offers a model for engaging with these concerns dialectically.

Wonder-Panic as a Framework for Stakeholder Interaction

There’s a real (wonder-panic) tension between strategic ambitions for AI (e.g. Ossiannilsson et al., 2023) and the anxieties perpetuated on a local level. Wonder-panic encourages balanced dialogues about the dual capacity and limitations of AI, fostering ethical use and equitable access. Through this heuristic, wonder-panic encourages a dialogue that acknowledges the limits of AI and invites a shared commitment to ethical use and equitable access.

The wonder-panic approach aligns with the values of dialectical thinking, which holds that progress is possible through the resolution of contradictions. This is not an argument for uncritical acceleration of technological disruption. Rather, navigating the ideological tensions between wonder and panic may instead allow us to engage in nuanced discourses that transcend binary thinking to foster a more informed perspective on AI’s role in open education.

In an age where a wealthy elite control the majority of media platforms, corporations, and algorithms, the rise of AI seems unstoppable. Does anyone really have a choice about adopting AI technologies, or having their cloud-stored files used to train algorithms? What prevents AI companies from flooding any public discourse about open education with generated interactions, AI agents and “bullshit”(Hicks et al., 2023)?

Wonder-panic promotes transparency, inclusion, and accountability in AI discourse. Openwashing shows, however, that openness remains an attractive concept for all involved, even if its authentic meaning is contested (Farrow, 2016). Similarly, though GenAI may disrupt textbook and repository focused OER strategies, new possibilities for collaboration, translation, reversioning and remix have barely begun to be explored. This approach resonates with the UNESCO (2019) OER Recommendation, which advocates for stakeholder collaboration to develop policies that support open educational practices. Broad interaction is essential to integrate open values into AI practices. The ‘open’ aspect of teaching and pedagogy should become part of educator training that is updated in response to new technologies. Policies must ensure fair benefits from AI and protect the intellectual property of educators. New technological paradigms are emerging, and with them new forms of social organisation perhaps not previously envisaged are implied.

Conclusion: Influencing the Future

We aren’t suggesting that Wonder-Panic is the only tension in all of this, but perhaps it provides a way to engage with the threats and promise of AI. At present, there is a risk that ‘panic’ will become dominant, encouraging paralysis and disengagement. Wonder-panic is not just a reaction to AI; it offers a lens for examining and shaping the future of open education. As AI becomes an infrastructural component of educational systems, it can provide a vector for reform of intellectual property and educational practice. Wonder-panic serves as a shared framework for engaging with both its promises and risks. By integrating wonder-panic into stakeholder discussions, the field of open education may better navigate the ethical and operational tensions AI presents, ensuring that the future of education remains grounded in openness, transparency, and shared ethical principles. However, the history of wonder-panic shows us that the correct pathway through the contradictions of dialectic is often obscure and yet inevitable in hindsight. It is only by engaging, collaborating and exploring that we can follow the authentic path: share your wonder; and your panic. Technologies usually overpromise and underdeliver, right?

Actionable Insights:

1. Explore open practice with AI in your own context; it has yet to be defined

2. Work towards policies supporting full transparency of AI systems including training data and model weighting (Liesenfeld & Dingemanse, 2024; White et al., 2024)

3. Leverage Explicable AI but recognise diverse communication needs of stakeholders (Farrow, 2023)

4. Anticipate the emergent digital divide by promoting inclusion in practice and discourse

References

Benjamin, R. (2024). The New Artificial Intelligentsia. Los Angeles Review of Books. https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-new-artificial-intelligentsia/

Bozkurt, A. (2023). Generative AI, Synthetic Contents, Open Educational Resources (OER), and Open Educational Practices (OEP): A New Front in the Openness Landscape. Open Praxis, 15(3), 178–184. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.15.3.579

Brevini, B. (2020). Black boxes, not green: Mythologizing artificial intelligence and omitting the environment. Big Data & Society, 7(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720935141

Burke, E. (1757). A philosophical enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful. London: R. and J. Dodsley

Downes, S. (2024). What is the soul of open educational resources? https://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2024/08/what-is-soul-of-open-educational.html

Farrow, R. (2016). Constellations of Openness. In Deimann, M. and Peters, M. A. (eds.) The Philosophy of Open Learning: Peer Learning and the Intellectual Commons. New York: Peter Lang.

Farrow, R. (2017). Open education and critical pedagogy. Learning, Media and Technology 42 (2): 130-146. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2016.1113991

Farrow, R. (2023) The possibilities and limits of explicable artificial intelligence (XAI) in education: a socio-technical perspective. Learning, Media and Technology, 48:2, 266-279. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2023.2185630

Floridi, L. (2024). Why the AI Hype is Another Tech Bubble. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4960826

Gibney, E. (2024). Not all ‘open source’ AI models are actually open: here’s a ranking. Nature (19th June). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-02012-5

Gray Widder, D., West, S., & Whittaker, M. (2023). Open (For Business): Big Tech, Concentrated Power, and the Political Economy of Open AI. In SSRN Electronic Journal. Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4543807

Hicks, M.T., Humphries, J. & Slater, J. (2024). ChatGPT is bullshit. Ethics and Information Technology 26, 38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5

Higgin, T. (2024, April 12). It’s Time to Ditch the Idea of Edtech Disruption. But What Comes Next? EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2024-04-12-it-s-time-to-ditch-the-idea-of-edtech-disruption-but-what-comes-next

Kant, I. (1902)[1790]. Kritik der Urteilskraft, Kants gesammelte Schriften, Volume 5. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter

Kessler, S. (2024, 17th May). Openwashing - An accusation against some A.I. companies that they are using the “open source” label too loosely. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/17/business/what-is-openwashing-ai.html

Kortemeyer, G. (2024). Tailoring Chatbots for Higher Education: Some Insights and Experiences (Version 1). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2409.06717

Knox, J. (2022). The Metaverse, or the Serious Business of Tech Frontiers. In Postdigital Science and Education (Vol. 4, Issue 2, pp. 207–215). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00300-9

Li, S.-F., Ng, K.-K., & Lee, L.-K. (2024). Integration of AI Learning into Higher Education: A Case of Using Microsoft Learn for Educators. In S. K. S. Cheung, F. L. Wang, N. Paoprasert, P. Charnsethikul, K. C. Li, & K. Phusavat (Hrsg.), Technology in Education. Innovative Practices for the New Normal (Bd. 1974, S. 231–241). Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-8255-4_20

Liesenfeld, A. & Dingemanse, M. (2024). Rethinking open source generative AI: open-washing and the EU AI Act. FAccT '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 1774 - 1787. https://doi.org/10.1145/3630106.3659005

Mackay, R. & Avenessien, A. (eds.) (2014). #Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader. MIT Press.

Means, A. (2018). Learning to Save the Future: Rethinking Education and Work in an Era of Digital Capitalism (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315450209

Mejias, U. A. & Couldry, N. (2024). Data Grab: The New Colonialism of Big Tech and How to Fight Back. The University of Chicago Press.

Misha, A. (2024, Mai 29). How AI Can Address Critical Challenges Facing Higher Education. EdSurge. https://www.edsurge.com/news/2024-03-29-how-ai-can-address-critical-challenges-facing-higher-education

Morley, S. (2021). A Short History of the Sublime. MIT Press Reader. https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/a-short-history-of-the-sublime/

Mosco, V. (2005). The digital sublime: Myth, power, and cyberspace (1. paperback ed). The MIT Press.

Ossiannilsson, E., Ulloa Cazarez, R. L., Goode, C., Mansour, C., & De Gusmão, C. M. G. (2024). Artificial Intelligence Use to Empower the Implementation of OER and the UNESCO OER Recommendation. Open Praxis, 16(2), 237–257. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.2.650

Panke, S. (2024). Open Educational Resources and Artificial Intelligence for Future Open Education. Mousaion: South African Journal of Information Studies, 42(1). https://doi.org/10.25159/2663-659X/15106

Peter, S., & Deimann, M. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, 5(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.23

Ross, H. (2024). The Soul of Open is In Danger. https://www.mctoonish.com/blog/?p=1908

Torres, E. P. (2023). The Acronym Behind Our Wildest AI Dreams and Nightmares. Truthdig. https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-acronym-behind-our-wildest-ai-dreams-and-nightmares/

UNESCO (2019). Recommendation on Open Educational Resources (OER) https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-open-educational-resources-oer

Warburton, A. (2023). The Wizard of AI. https://alanwarburton.co.uk/

White, M., Haddad, I., Osborne, C., Liu, X.Y., Abdelmonsef, A., & Varghese, S. (2024). The Model Openness Framework: Promoting Completeness and Openness for Reproducibility, Transparency and Usability in AI. ArXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.13784

Wiley, D. (2024). Why Open Education Will Become Generative AI Education. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpcE7ihlUDo&t=224s

Wulf, C. (2003). The dream of education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 35(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270305530