Recently, discussions about how AI will change the future of work have become increasingly common. Every time I see these conversations, I keep returning to one question: in the face of such profound change, what kind of children should we be nurturing so that they will not be replaced in the future?

In the past, we often believed that as long as children learned more knowledge, memorized more content, and mastered more standard answers, they would have an advantage in the future. But the AI era is reminding us of something important: an advantage built only on knowledge storage may not be stable.

Many knowledge-based tasks can now be completed rapidly by AI. It can organize information, generate content, provide suggestions, and even present several different options within a short period of time. If children only receive information passively and become used to waiting for answers, the ability most likely to be weakened is also their most precious one: independent thinking and judgment.

After thinking about this for a long time, I have become increasingly convinced that instead of simply learning more knowledge, the ability to think independently, analyze problems, compare options, and make judgments is what will be truly difficult for AI to replace in the future. This ability cannot be gained through memorization alone. It must be gradually built through repeated, authentic learning situations.

This is also why I have recently paid particular attention to Chat Everywhere 2 (CE2). The reason is not that it can think for students directly. Rather, CE2’s greater value lies in helping teachers design lessons with more depth of thinking and more room for discussion.

Truly valuable learning is never just about telling students the answer. It is about helping students learn to observe, analyze, compare, and judge within meaningful problem situations. Taking case-based learning as an example, CE2 does not turn a lesson into “AI directly gives the answer.” Instead, it helps teachers produce initial case drafts more efficiently, add contextual variables, and generate multiple discussion pathways for comparison. This allows the classroom to move from a single standard answer toward multi-option comparison and critical discussion.

This has also made me rethink what children may truly need in the future. Perhaps it is not constantly chasing more information, but learning how not to be led by information in an age overflowing with it.

For example, imagine a classroom discussion about a real situation: a tourism destination faces a service complaint and brand crisis. What should be done? In a traditional input-based lesson, students might simply memorize the “standard approach.” But if teachers can use CE2 to quickly generate different perspectives, strategies, and possible outcomes, students no longer just memorize answers. They must ask: Which option is more reasonable? Why do I make this judgment? Which methods appear effective but overlook risks? In a real situation, which choice is more feasible?

From the perspective of teaching practice, the value of such a tool is not that it draws conclusions for students. Its value is that it makes the classroom more like a thinking process built around real problems. Students do not simply receive content; they form their own views through comparison.

This is exactly the ability we care about most: not whether students can recite answers, but whether they can think.

I also care deeply about another question: if AI enters the classroom, will students become even more dependent on it? This concern is reasonable. That is why we need to define the role of AI tools clearly. They should support thinking and teaching, not replace teacher judgment or complete the thinking process for students.

For this reason, I am more convinced of CE2’s true positioning. It is not meant to replace teachers or think on behalf of students. It is better understood as a support tool that helps teachers make the learning process more effective, interactive, and rich in thinking value.

We cannot predict what kind of intelligent world children will face ten years from now. But today, we can decide what abilities we want to help them develop. If children become used to passive reception and accept whatever AI provides, what they eventually lose may be the most valuable ability of all: independent thinking.

But if classrooms allow children to learn comparison, analysis, and judgment through real problems, then even when AI becomes more powerful in the future, children will still retain core abilities of their own.

To me, in the AI era, what is truly worth developing is not the ability to memorize more than AI, but the ability to think, break down problems, compare different options, judge what is more reasonable, and form one’s own views in complex situations. These are the hard skills that even powerful AI cannot directly replace.

If you are also thinking about where education should place its focus in the AI era, perhaps it is worth re-examining this idea: what we need is not just more tools, but learning approaches that genuinely support thinking as it happens.

From this perspective, CE2’s value is not in directly providing standard answers. It lies in helping teachers organize cases more effectively, guide discussions, generate feedback, and allow students in the classroom to do more than receive information — to participate, think, and express themselves.

Suggested meta description: In the AI era, children need more than knowledge. They need independent thinking, judgment, comparison, and problem-solving skills that AI cannot replace.