Article illustration 1

The overhead light seems to dim. A pen stops clicking. A room collectively leans in as a student speaks aloud for the first time in years. These are the moments Sean Cho A., an assistant professor and writer, describes as the irreducible core of teaching—moments no AI can perceive, let alone facilitate. In a poignant essay for The Rumpus, Cho argues that while AI can generate flawless lecture slides and analyze discussion board sentiment, it fails catastrophically at the human essence of education: the space between words, the vulnerability of error, and the shared silence where understanding blooms.

"AI cannot mishear. And mishearing is often how we learn," writes Cho. He recounts a student translating her grandmother's phrase after a marginal "What do you mean?" sparked an office hours visit. "The error enabled the way in. The misunderstanding made the meaning."

This stands in stark contrast to AI's deterministic input-output paradigm. Large language models (LLMs) optimize for correctness and coherence, eliminating the fertile ground of misinterpretation and correction that builds human connection. Cho details the irreplaceable subtleties:

  • Reading the Unspoken: Detecting the shift in a voice saying "home" versus "mother," or interpreting an eye-roll as solidarity, not disdain.
  • Embracing Productive Failure: When a bot's "Homeric" becomes "homely," sparking an unexpected week-long discussion on heroism.
  • Holding Space for Vulnerability: Witnessing a student's trembling return to their voice after years of silence—a moment with "no A/B test, no metric, no archive of comparable outputs."
Article illustration 3

The Algorithmic Blind Spot: Presence Over Precision
Cho’s classroom thrives on perceived imperfections: forgotten lanyards, misremembered readings, the strategic "I don't know," and even the well-intentioned lie ("that was a good question"). These are not failures but features of a deeply human process. "The syllabus is a mess of half-remembered intentions," he admits, highlighting that the curriculum is merely a scaffold for the real work: showing up "hungover and sad" and asking for an extension, confessing a sentence feels strange, or daring to write something shocking.

"What A.I. can’t do is feel the shape of silence after someone says something so honest we forget we’re here to learn," Cho states. It cannot pause mid-sentence because it recalled a sensory memory—the smell of a father’s old chair. This absence of lived, embodied experience and genuine emotional resonance is the chasm between artificial intelligence and authentic teaching.

Implications for EdTech: Augmentation, Not Replacement
For developers and tech leaders in education, Cho’s testimony is a crucial design constraint. AI tools might streamline grading or personalize content delivery, but they cannot:
1. Cultivate the trust that allows a student to write about their dead dog or their pills.
2. Recognize the "look in someone’s eyes" when they finally articulate a weeks-long struggle.
3. Create the shared vulnerability where a "terrible question" becomes a class-bonding laugh.

The future lies not in replicating teachers but in building tools that free them for these irreplaceable human interactions—tools that handle administrative burdens while preserving space for the "stutter, the pause, the gesture" where meaning is co-created. As Cho concludes: "The human error is the point." It’s the messy, inefficient, profoundly connective tissue of learning that algorithms, by their very nature, erase. The challenge for technologists isn't simulating this humanity, but safeguarding its necessary space in an increasingly automated world.