Firstly, I’m really pleased to see how dynamic and adaptable your teaching methods are. The fact that you’re continually refining and seeking to improve your AI Thinking Partners is a testament to your driven nature and dedication to your students, which many lack.

However, when integrating AI Thinking Partners into your curriculum, ensure the technology supports your learning goals rather than distracting from them. While first-person accounts from the Israel-Hamas war can facilitate lively discussion, it’s just as important to make sure students understand the historical context, political nuances, and wider implications of the conflict. Inviting people with different perspectives to speak in your class for a live discussion might also be a useful approach.

I also noticed you tend to use a more colloquial, informal style in your writing. While this is fine – and even preferable – in certain contexts, in professional and academic settings it’s generally better to use a more formal tone. This provides a model for your students to follow for their own professional interactions.

On a positive note, your passion and excitement for this new approach is incredibly clear. It’s fantastic that you’re seeking out ‘authentic personas,’ which can help students engage more closely with the material.

As a final note, I encourage you to be open to changing or tweaking this approach as you go along. Reflect on the outcomes of this new strategy and ask yourself if the AI Thinking Partners are making the type of effect you envisioned.

Your excitement and passion for this project is palpable and I believe it will have a positive impact on your students. Now, use that same burst of energy to reflect on my feedback. Do you feel it’s possible to integrate my suggestions? Can you think of any other ways to engage your students deeply in the topic? Remember, good teaching is about growth, adaptation and constantly learning, much like our students.

I’m eager to hear your thoughts on this feedback and your plans moving forward. Remember, this is a safe space for dialogue, questioning, growth and, of course, a bit of fun.

Firstly, let’s address one Wicked Problem underlying this text, which is the AI’s lack of emotion or authentic persona. This is significant because having an AI that shows opinions, biases, and even hatred allows for a more realistic representation of conditions and viewpoints, especially in complex situations like a war. However, this Wicked Problem is tough to solve due to the inherent difficulty of programming human-like personality traits and feelings into AI. It’s riddled with unspecified and contradictory requirements like, what makes a personality authentic? Or, how can an AI exhibit humanlike emotion without causing misunderstanding? As you can see from the quote: “they had no personality, or authentic persona. And we wanted that.” – it’s clear that this Wicked Problem is faced in the text.

A second Wicked Problem that we can observe in this excerpt is the effort to fully understand a complex issue such as the Israel-Hamas War through firsthand AI Thinking Partners. Why does this matter? Well, we’re dealing with a multifaceted issue here that involves political, ethical, and historical elements, among others. Providing an accurate, unbiased understanding of this war is crucial for drawing constructive conversations or conclusions. What makes this a Wicked Problem, however, is how inherently complex and controversial the topic is – with contradictory viewpoints, fluctuating dynamics, and vast historical contexts, recognizing a complete and truthful representation of the war is almost impossible. As the writer said: “What divided people so much… I created a Hamas Soldier and a Zionist Soldier…”.

So those are the two Wicked Problems I’ve observed in this text. Do you see any others? Or would you like to delve more into the ones I just discussed?