Not long ago we had a meeting of university professors in which the atmosphere of concern prevailed over the changes that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has produced in the teaching of history. His colleagues did not know what to respond to this development. In those dark sins there was a fear of losing the job.

So far, social sciences have been at least reflective sciences. That is, it is a field of knowledge based mainly on reflection. That is why we tell the students of the first year of History that in order to obtain the title they must follow the following steps: reading, reflecting, debating and reading. To show that teachers have internalized the contents, since the Bologna plan was implemented we almost always give them oral presentations or written texts. But things are changing very quickly. In these times when the contents of more than 280 characters are considered boring, we dedicate less time to a paused reflection and, in addition, with AA, can automatically perform the process of searching and writing information. What about our work!

At that meeting there was a hostile atmosphere. It occurred to me that maybe the industrial revolution had that feeling. The technical development of the industry revolutionized all areas of old society and buried the old world. How feudal relations of production seemed to me that teaching so far was unfolding in an unstoppable way.

Thus, some of the colleagues suggested the need to recover the old form of teaching, leaving aside continuous teaching and written works, the return of master classes and the weight of the final enemy. I looked like the Carlists who wanted to keep the Old Regime. Some, on the contrary, recognized that AA seemed very useful and used it to prepare classes.

Some believe that AA will serve to liberate humanity. They say it will free us from the conjugation of exploitation, because it will represent us in physical and painful jobs. Although this is not the first time that optimistic technophile discourses have been opened up, it has become clear in the past that technology, only through its development, will not bring welfare and happiness if it becomes dependent on the needs of capitalism. Technological development could be used to do evil, to enrich itself disproportionately and unfairly and to unite the expropriated to misery. Scientific developments in the industrial revolution allowed for increased food production and remarkable advances in medicine, but we also owe chemical weapons and the two world wars. In addition to the domestic tasks of history, we now know that the AA is being used for war massacres. This is not about technological development, but about the interests behind it. That is our lesson today.