TL;DR
The choice isn’t between distributing AI and not having it. AI is coming regardless of what anyone decides. The methods are published. The capability is mathematics, and mathematics doesn’t stay in a jurisdiction.
To whatever degree these systems are starting to improve themselves — and the labs now say they are — the window in which any authority meaningfully controls the pace is closing on its own. And the question is already settled empirically: Chinese labs have put near-frontier open-weight models into global circulation, for free, and have given every indication they intend to keep going as capability rises. There is no version of the next decade in which advanced AI is scarce and someone responsible is deciding who gets it. That world is gone. It ended without an announcement and without a vote.
Bernie Sanders has written a letter to three of the US companies (Anthropic, Meta, OpenAI) asking them to stop development, but he ignores Chinese companies sitting at the frontier and even many other US companies working on recursive self-improvement. This is like asking the Patriots, Giants, and Bucs to stop playing football because football is bad and that if they don’t stop then the world will have Sunday football.
So the real choice is between a broadly distributed capability and a concentrated one — and concentration has no correction mechanism. If the small group holding it is wrong, nothing in the system catches the error. Distribution at least preserves the possibility of being checked. It’s the arrangement that fails least catastrophically when the people in charge turn out to be mistaken, which historically they are.
Introduction
On August 10, Mark Zuckerberg published a 6,500-word letter called “The Future is for Everyone: The Path to a Positive AI Future.” It rests on three claims: that individual empowerment is the source of prosperity, that invention rather than automation is the point of superintelligence, and that a balance of power is the foundation of safety.
Start with the repeated obvious objection so we can get past it. Meta has enormous commercial interests riding on this argument (so does the status quo educational industrial complex). A company that has bet its future on open weights and personal AI devices has every reason to publish a manifesto explaining why open weights and personal AI devices are civilization’s best hope. Some of the letter is positioning. The $1 billion community fund announced alongside it is positioning.
None of that lets educators off the hook.
Because whatever you think of the messenger, the letter is a fairly accurate description of the world our students are walking into.
And the central question it raises — who gets to direct abundant intelligence that is available — is a question schools are currently answering in the worst possible way.
Start by taking the claim seriously
Buried in the letter is a factual report that should have generated more discussion in education than it did. Zuckerberg says Meta has begun to see its systems improve themselves. Slowly, he concedes, but unmistakably. He treats superintelligence as now in sight rather than as a distant hypothetical, and he wrote the letter because he thinks the philosophy governing it needs to be settled before it arrives.
He may be wrong. He has commercial reasons to say it. Set the odds wherever your judgment puts them.
What’s not arguable is that the people building these systems are making decisions on the assumption that it’s true, and many companies are developing systems that improve themselves. Meta is restructuring its release governance around it. The other labs have published their own versions of the same claim. Capital is moving on it at a scale that has already reshaped the energy market. Whatever the actual probability, the institutions with the most information are planning as though it’s substantial.
Education is planning for nothing.
Not disagreeing — planning for nothing. There is no position on Superintelligence. No accreditor has revised its standards in response. No state has revisited graduation requirements. No leadership preparation program has rewritten its curriculum. No major standards body has published so much as a framework for what a school should be accountable for, if any of this is right. The silence isn’t a considered skeptical judgment that Zuckerberg and his peers are overselling. A considered skeptical judgment would be a document. This is the absence of anyone in the chain treating the question as theirs.
Take the claim seriously enough to argue with it. That’s the minimum. If you think the labs are wrong, write down why, and write down what your school is doing that stays right under both scenarios. If you think they’re even half right — if the tools students will hold in four years are meaningfully more capable than the ones they hold now — then almost every planning assumption currently governing schools needs to be reopened, and the fact that reopening is inconvenient is not a reason.
The people who will live with the answer are sitting in your building right now.
The one line that should reorganize school AI policy
The argument at the center of the letter is that intelligence is about to become abundant, and the real question is who directs it. Zuckerberg’s answer is that no small group should decide, because history offers no single objective account of what makes a good life. People have to decide what matters in their own lives. The line he builds this on is worth sitting with:
“There is no such thing as a singular benevolent superintelligence.”
The claim isn’t primarily technical. It’s about power. Concentrate the capability in a few hands — labs, governments, a priesthood of experts, or the system itself — and you get outcomes that serve the holders. Distribute it, and people check each other the way citizens and institutions check each other in a functioning democracy.
His thought experiments carry the argument. One person with a superintelligent lawyer gets an unfair advantage regardless of the merits. Everyone with one gets a court system that works better than today’s, where outcomes track resources. One person with cybersecurity superintelligence can break into nearly anything. Everyone with it means every system gets hardened. One firm with superintelligence outcompetes the market into stagnation. Every firm with it means a more dynamic economy.
Now run the same experiment inside a school building.
One student has a frontier model. The others don’t.
The letter tells you exactly who that student is. Zuckerberg describes his eight-year-old daughter coding her ideas and producing videos in an evening — work that would have taken him months, or been flatly impossible. They’re designing a robot together now. He offers it as evidence of what’s coming for everyone.
For everyone to be part of the future, everyone must have the ability to use superintelligence to improve their lives and shape the world.
Read it the other way. That’s a child who will grow up assuming that the distance between having an idea and building it is one evening. Not because she’s gifted. Because of what’s in the house.
Now look at the kid in your fourth-period class whose school blocked the model and whose family can’t buy the subscription. Same age, same curiosity, no evening. Every year that gap runs, it compounds — not in what she knows, but in what she believes is available to her. Zuckerberg’s daughter is learning that ideas are things you make. Your student is learning that ideas are things you write down for a grade.
We did not eliminate the power asymmetry the letter warns about. We reproduced it inside the one institution built to interrupt it, and put an acceptable use policy on the door.
Consider what a restriction policy actually assumes. Imagine writing a rule that your students will have no devices, no phones at school or at home, and no electricity — and then evaluating them against students who have all three. Nobody would defend that. But it’s easy to erase the opportunities other children have when you can point at the ways your students might squander them. They’d waste it on social media. They’d play games. They’d cheat. Those who want to administer the status quo love hearing this message: Block the world and carry on.
Some would. Some of Zuckerberg’s daughters’ cohort will waste it too, and it won’t matter, because the floor under them is high enough that wasted time is affordable. Restriction doesn’t protect your students from wasting the tool. It protects them from having it. And it leaves you preparing them to succeed in a world that no longer exists — one where the ceiling on what a person can build is set by how much time and money stands behind them, rather than by what they can imagine and defend.
This is the priesthood model at the classroom scale, and thousands of schools adopted it in about eighteen months without anyone naming it as a philosophy. It arrived as a series of reasonable-sounding operational decisions: an acceptable use policy here, a blocked domain there, a district license that covers staff and not kids. Nobody voted to widen the gap. We widened it anyway.
The tutoring line is the one that should end the debate
Zuckerberg’s education claim is the least original thing in the letter and the most damning for us. Everyone gets a personalized tutor and coach with expert-level knowledge across every subject and unlimited patience. Students get help exactly where they need it — help that today is available only to families who can write the check.
Every school in America has spent decades saying it wants that. Every equity plan, every intervention block, every Title I narrative is an attempt to get some fraction of it to some fraction of students.
It arrived. And a large number of schools responded by blocking it.
Understand what that means. The single largest expansion of access to individualized instruction in the history of formal education showed up, priced at zero or close to it, and the institutional response was to restrict it — while the students whose parents pay for tutoring kept their tutors and went home to unrestricted frontier models on their own phones. The gap didn’t close. It widened, and we widened it.
Some of this is protection of financial interest, and we should say so plainly. Some of it is that admitting students can get expert instruction outside the building raises questions nobody wants to answer. But most of it is simpler and more forgivable: redesigning teaching and assessment is enormous work, and blocking is a decision you can make on a Tuesday.
The redesign is the job. Teachers become coaches — the people who set the standard, decide what’s worth pursuing, and hold students to what they claim. Students run the intelligence. That’s the shift. Not a tool rollout.
We are preparing them to be hired
Everyone will have powerful tools to create new businesses and the economy will become more entrepreneurial. People are starting to be able to manifest ideas themselves without having to raise money or build large team
The letter’s economic claim is that everyone gets tools capable of starting new businesses, and that the economy becomes more entrepreneurial as a result. People are beginning to manifest ideas on their own, without raising money or assembling a large team.
Whatever you make of the timeline, notice what that describes. For the entire history of the institution we work in, the two things standing between a person’s idea and its existence were capital and labor. You needed money, and you needed people, and if you had neither, your idea stayed an idea. School made a reasonable bet on that world: the realistic path to a decent life was to become the kind of person an institution would select, so we built an apparatus for producing selectable candidates. GPA, transcript, class rank, recommendation letters, the credential itself. All of it is signaling machinery, and it worked, because on the other side sat employers and admissions offices doing the choosing.
Both of those constraints are loosening at once. Capital requirements for a software business have been falling for twenty years and are now approaching a subscription. The team requirement is what’s changing now. And the jobs most exposed in the near term are the entry-level ones — the analyst, the junior associate, the first-year everything. We are training students to climb a ladder while its bottom rungs are being removed.
The scarce input in that world isn’t the ability to execute a specified task well. It’s knowing what’s worth building and being able to make other people care. Neither is on any transcript.
So, look at where entrepreneurship currently lives in a typical school. It’s a club. It’s a business elective. It’s a pitch competition in April where students write a plan, present it to three teachers, and get scored on a rubric — a simulation of a business, assessed by people who are obligated to be encouraging, ending in a grade rather than a customer. We took the one activity that most closely models the world the letter describes and made it a hobby for a self-selecting handful.
Make it core. Not a unit on entrepreneurship — the actual thing. Students identify something a real person needs, build it with the tools they now have, and put it in front of someone under no obligation to be kind. The standard shifts from would a teacher grade this well to would a stranger use this. That’s a harder standard, it’s the only one that transfers, and for the first time students can actually reach it inside a semester, because the build no longer requires money or a team.t.
Direction is a curriculum, not a setting
Here is where I part company with the letter’s optimism, and where schools have the most work to do.
Zuckerberg’s argument assumes people know what they want. Distribute the capability, let individuals direct it toward their own conception of a good life, and pluralism sorts it out. But the ability to direct powerful tools toward your own ends is not a natural endowment. It’s learned. And it’s precisely what twelve years of compliance schooling fails to develop.
A student who has spent every year of school being told what to produce, by when, and to what rubric will not suddenly become the author of their own projects because they’ve been handed a capable model. They’ll ask it what to do. Which is exactly the failure mode the letter warns about, relocated from the civilizational scale to the individual one. A person who can’t say what they want has effectively delegated the direction of their intelligence to whoever set the defaults.
Pluralism has to be taught. So does the habit of pursuing a question because it’s yours. So does the experience of building something nobody assigned and then standing behind it when someone pushes back. Debate does this. So do entrepreneurship, project-based work, design, and making. These have been electives — the enrichment you get to after the real curriculum. In the world the letter describes, they are the real curriculum.
I’ve spent three summers watching what this looks like when you actually hand kids the tools, and I keep reaching for the same word: wizards. They are the natural wizards of this era, climbing into machines the adults are still trying to lock in pouches. The magic Zuckerberg is describing — an idea becoming a thing in an evening — is real, and twelve-year-olds pick it up faster than any of us do.
But a wizard is only half of it, and this is where the letter stops short. A wizard has magic. A Jedi has magic plus training, discipline, and something they’ve decided is worth their energy. We are not just raising AI wizards. We are raising Jedi builders: young people with magical tools, disciplined minds, energy, and passion.
The distinction matters because the magic now ships free with every laptop, and it will keep getting better without any help from us. The formation doesn’t. That part still has to be taught by people, in rooms, over years — and it’s the entire remaining job of the institution.
Which is why the restriction policies get it backwards at the deepest level. You don’t get Jedi by locking up the lightsabers. You get Jedi by training the hand.
What the letter gets too easy
Two places I’d push back, and none of them cut against the argument for distribution.
Compute. The letter proposes an auction mechanism so everyone gets the lowest available price for intelligence and compute. That’s a real attempt at a hard problem, and it will not eliminate the advantage that goes to whoever can buy more. Which is an argument for schools doing what they’ve always done — distributing access to capability that families can’t equally purchase — rather than an argument against distribution. If you’re worried the compute gap will track the income gap, the institution designed to interrupt exactly that transmission is the school. And it’s the one currently declining the assignment. (For the same reason, constraining compute buildout constrains the equal distribution — you can’t hand everyone abundant intelligence without the infrastructure that produces it.)
“It always works out.” The letter offers the standard reassurance: every technological transition sparked fear that people would be left behind, and every time humanity emerged with more prosperity, health, and freedom shared more widely. Long run, that’s roughly right. But the long run did the work in that sentence. For the people living through the transitions, they were hell — a generation of displaced workers, collapsed towns, and lives spent absorbing a shock that paid off for their grandchildren.
Schools do not serve the long run. They serve the people living through it. The kids in our buildings right now are the ones who eat the transition. That’s the whole reason to move fast.
Why schools got here, and why it made sense
None of this is stupidity. Every piece of the wrong response is rational inside the world schools were built for.
We treated it as an other technology. Bolt it on, name a coordinator, run the PD, add it to the tech plan. That framing works for interactive whiteboards and one-to-one laptops. It does not work for something that changes what’s worth teaching and how we need to teach.
Edtech optimized the status quo. Most of the market sold efficiency at existing practice — faster grading, better worksheets, tighter analytics on the same outcomes — rather than the redesign the moment it requires. Schools spent real money and real time on tools that made the old model marginally efficient to run, which is the opposite of useful when the old model is what’s in question. These companies had good intentions, but they don’t understand the moment, and they led schools down the wrong path.
Two decades of institutional drift ran the wrong way. More standardization, more control, more thinking we know best how to prepare students for a world we’ve never lived in, and more of the teacher at the front. That entire grammar of schooling — the master delivering content to receivers, verified by proctored recall — is exactly the layer whose value is collapsing.
Leadership pipelines are training people for a departing world. Principal and superintendent preparation programs are still preparing leaders to run an institution optimized for a socioeconomic and political order that is on the way out. They produce competent managers of the thing that’s ending.
We’re benchmarking against the wrong world. Schools compare themselves to peer schools, to state averages, to last year. All of those benchmarks are inside the old frame. Every one of them can improve while the institution becomes less relevant.
And the accreditors and standards bodies have been almost entirely silent. That’s the load-bearing failure, because schools follow those signals. As long as accreditation asks about seat time, course sequences, and assessment integrity defined as keeping AI out of student work, individual schools that redesign are taking on risk that conforming schools avoid. We are asking principals to be brave when the system should be asking them to comply with something better.
Nobody in this chain is acting irrationally. The chain itself is pointed at a world that’s leaving.
What making it right looks like
The correction isn’t complicated, which is what makes the delay hard to defend.
Give every student access to a frontier model. Not staff-only licenses. Not a locked-down district wrapper three capability generations behind. If the tutoring argument is right — and it is — then restricting student access is an equity decision, and it’s the wrong one.
Move teachers into coaching. The value a teacher adds is judgment, standard-setting, and holding a student to what they’ve claimed. That work grows more valuable as generation gets cheap.
Assess what students can stand behind. Oral defense, live building, public presentation, work students have to answer for in front of someone. If a student can’t defend it, they don’t own it. That’s a workable line, and it doesn’t require surveillance software.
Make authorship the center of the curriculum. Building, debating, creating, designing. What used to be the elective track becomes the core, because these are the activities where a person has to decide what’s worth doing and answer for the result.
Teach students to direct intelligence. Prompting is trivial. Knowing what you want, evaluating what comes back, catching the errors, and pushing until it’s right — that’s a curriculum, and almost nobody is running it.
Say the pluralism part out loud. If there’s no single answer to what makes a good life, students have to practice forming and defending their own. That’s not a values-neutral position. It’s a demanding one, and it needs to be taught deliberately.
Push the accreditors. Standards bodies need to be asked, publicly and repeatedly, what a school in 2026 should be accountable for. Their silence is currently functioning as an endorsement of the status quo.
Zuckerberg’s argument is that the safest and most prosperous future comes from putting intelligence in as many hands as possible, because concentrated capability serves whoever holds it. He is making that argument about labs and governments.
The same argument applies to school buildings, and we are on the wrong side of it. We have the capability. We’re restricting it to adults. We’re calling that responsible.
The correction is available, it costs less than the compliance software many districts are buying, and the window in which it counts as leadership rather than catching up is closing.
"There is no position on Superintelligence." Agreed, from what I've seen.
I'm thinking of doing a scenario exercise for academics, responding to the emergence of ASI.
Sujet très pertinent. L’enjeu n’est pas seulement l’IA à l’école, mais son usage équitable et pédagogique.