This chapter begins with a reckoning. Not of technology, but of the values embedded within it. Education, once a space of moral tension and relational depth, now risks functioning as a scaffold for compliance. Artificial intelligence enters this field not as a solution but as a mirror. It reflects our discomfort with ambiguity, our hunger for control, and our quiet abandonment of judgment.
Let me define the terms A.I. and Q.A.I.
Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) refers to the ability of computer systems to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence. These include learning, reasoning, decision-making and language understanding. Such systems operate by processing large amounts of data and identifying patterns that allow them to make predictions or take actions without direct human input.
Quantum Artificial Intelligence (Q.A.I.) builds on this foundation by integrating quantum computing. This uses quantum bits (qubits) capable of representing multiple states simultaneously. It allows Q.A.I. systems to process complex problems more efficiently than classical A.I., especially in fields like optimisation, cryptography and scientific modelling. While A.I. reflects the logic and structure of its training data, Q.A.I. introduces a new threshold. Computation becomes probabilistic, entangled and potentially non-local.
Together, they mark a shift in how intelligence is designed, understood and deployed. What follows is not a critique of A.I. itself. It is a record of what we have stopped saying. Silence, metrics and mechanised hope have reshaped the civic field.
This is not a manifesto. It is a witness statement.
