This response engages directly with Marcus Weldon’s Newsweek article, “The Story So Far: 8 Principles for the Future of AI,” which synthesizes insights from Rodney Brooks, David Eagleman, and Yann LeCun. While affirming the article’s central premise—that AI is often mischaracterized as replicating human intelligence—this essay extends that critique by focusing on the educational consequences of relying on a narrow, unitary definition of intelligence.

Drawing from the theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI) and a framework for Empowerment Education, I argue that our schools are still organized around a reductive model of intelligence that becomes particularly dangerous with the emergence of generative AI. This model, based in logical-mathematical reasoning and expressed almost exclusively through language, mirrors the narrow cognitive bandwidth of AI systems. As a result, we risk cultivating in students the very same limited forms of intelligence we are building into our machines.

The essay explores how Collaborative Learning Scenarios, Empowerment Enclaves, and other tools can help restore a more pluralistic, human-centered understanding of intelligence in classrooms. Each section of the response corresponds to one of the eight themes in Weldon’s article, but reinterprets it through the lens of education and child development, with particular attention to the implications of AI integration in K–12 schools.

Ultimately, this is a call not to reject AI, but to redesign education in a way that makes space for the full range of human intelligences. In doing so, we can ensure that our future with AI is one led by ethically grounded, creatively capable, and civically empowered humans.

“AGI” is narrow; Human intelligences are broad

Intelligence isn’t singular—and education can’t afford to act like it is.
In this post, we examine how schools continue to privilege a narrow, standardized model of intelligence—despite decades of research on the reality of cognitive and cultural diversity. Through a practical strategy called Intelligence Mapping, educators can begin right now to recognize the full range of student thinking already in motion, and align learning with the world students are growing into—not the one we grew up in.

Students don’t just absorb information—they discover their own voice, learn how they learn, and practice co-creating the communities they’re part of. They see that intelligence isn’t something you have or don’t—it’s something you develop, in many forms, over time.

Designing for intelligence diversity means designing for humanity. It means recognizing that our minds are many, our ways of knowing are rich, and the future depends on all of them.

The future of education lies in cultivating the full spectrum of intelligences that make us human: interpersonal, musical, spatial, kinesthetic, intrapersonal, naturalistic, and beyond. If we design classrooms that recognize and develop these capacities, we empower students to grow in ways that AI cannot emulate. This is not a competition—it’s a redirection. A reminder that education should be about expanding our humanity, not compressing it to fit the limits of machine cognition.

As we understand Artificial Intelligence more and more, a richer and more complete understanding of human intelligence is emerging—one that recognizes that all people think, learn, and express understanding through a variety of cognitive capacities. Schools have a profound opportunity to nurture this intelligence diversity in every learner. When they do, education becomes not just more inclusive, but more human, and better prepared for the challenges and possibilities of the AI-integrated future.

The prioritization of logical-mathematical and linguistic intelligences in education has thus created a paradox. While it has enabled remarkable technological advancements, it has also diminished the relative value of human contributions in these areas, as AI increasingly takes over tasks that were once exclusive to highly educated professionals. This shift highlights the urgent need to rethink educational priorities, moving beyond the narrow focus on computational intelligence to embrace intelligence diversity.

Embedding of the pursuit of intelligence singularity in education has perpetuated systemic inequities, narrowing the scope of intellectual development to align with limited metrics. Intelligence diversity, rooted in Gardner’s MI theory, offers a transformative framework to address these distortions. Only by recognizing and cultivating the full spectrum of human intelligences, education systems can foster equity, creativity, and innovation. This shift is essential not only for preparing students to thrive in a dynamic, technology-driven world but also for nurturing the diverse intellectual capital necessary for collective progress.

To be serious about this work, we need to start by creating safe and inclusive spaces where students are encouraged to share their real feelings and experiences. Our schools and educational policymakers need to establish environments that encourage open dialogue, active listening, and respect for diverse opinions, ensuring ALL students feel comfortable sharing their thoughts.

Can we shift our work in ed policy and school improvement from work that is designed to do what is “good for” students and instead move toward asking them what they want to accomplish?

Listening to students is always the right first step.

But this trick intends to miss the point. In this exchange, one side favors parental involvement, elevating their experiences and those of their studnets so that more equitable systems might be put in place and years of discrimination, bias, and exclusion might begin to be replaced with systems that better align with the American ideals of free expression AND the fundamental nature of how learning works through discussion and deliberation across lines of difference.

Are there students who really want to get to school but simply cannot because they are stranded somewhere? Sure. But if we truly understand that there are students in such overwhelming circumstances, our reaction is shamefully inadequate.