In a world where information is free, what is the value of knowledge?

title: In a world where information is free, what is the value of knowledge? summary: I've been thinking a lot about what is the meaning of teaching and learning in a world where information is basically free online. If you know where to look and know how to look, then you can find the answer to almost anything you need. So does knowledge and mastery matter? What role must/should/will educators play in the future of learning? date: 2026-04-16

This post continues from a previous post

I'm also going to demo my own little logo here, just so you know who wrote this:

I've been thinking a lot about what is the meaning of teaching and learning in a world where information is basically free online. If you know where to look and know how to look, then you can find the answer to almost anything you need. So does knowledge and mastery matter? What role must/should/will educators play in the future of learning?

This post reflects that we are all going through the same process of figuring out the place AI will occupy in education. I've spoken with a number of old colleagues, who are all integrating AI into their own workflows and recognizing how it is changing their role, the role of their graduate students in their labs, and the future of their undergrads, almost overnight.

First, let's talk about knowledge vs. information. I would contend that a chatbot is at the very least a new portal to information. But is it helping people generate knowledge?

A couple points in the case for. My colleagues are already using it to:

• Fill in blind spots in their own knowledge and research, and help them identify and select new areas of research that is coincident to their own.
• Help them complete tasks faster while skipping the training step required by a grad student.
• Train themselves on topics they are not familiar with, so they can connect the dots faster and better.
• Make their work more legible and comprehensible, not just in language and vocabulary, but in relating complex concepts in more relatable ways, via comparisons, similes, analogies, and other storytelling techniques often left out by experts.

So could say that these tools are helping to generate more knowledge faster, connect concepts in ways often hindered by one person's own knowledge base, and make their work more relatable. I would say that's not information generation, that's knowledge generation. But in the case against, let me remind you of some points that you are probably also hearing:

• You still need to know what and how to ask: Not everyone has the vocabulary base to know how to ask the right questions.
• You need a better bullshit meter: My colleagues are able to tell when they're being led astray, possibly better than their students.
• Human-focused review suffers: LLMs are weaponizing that work against us by making them easier to generate. Yes, you can write your paper faster and better, but grading, reviewing, and evaluating that work becomes that much harder without resorting to the same tools.
• Not everyone uses these tools to increase knowledge, but to complete tasks without an effort understanding. The word machine makes more words, but quality suffers.
• This becomes an issue of access: not everyone is able / willing to pay for these tools.
• And finally the proof-pudding problem: If all the information in the world is freely available, why isn't everyone at the top of their profession?

I would posit that the lack of information has not been the real limitation in the generation and acquisition of knowledge for a long time. Google has been around for a long time, and if you knew where and how to prompt, you could find the answer to anything.

So what is the value proposition for higher education in these modern times?

• Gets you attention from a professional. Whether or not you appreciate it, you are paying for the attention of the teaching team in your classes. If you can use it appropriately, it has a multiplicative effect on your classroom success.
• Deadlines & Accountability. If you're on a project team, you have people counting on you to finish. You have a deadline for your project. Your instructor asks "why didn't I see you in class?" All of these things demonstrate that your presence and your participation are important to others, which is a good motivator for certain personalities (like mine).
• Teaches you the keywords for your field. You don't know what you don't know. In developing your technical vocabulary, you are making it easier to expand your knowledge later in life.
• Strengthens your bullshit muscle. If we are all going to be using chatbots professionally some day, we all need to know when it's wrong.
• Requires you to develop hands-on experience. At least in the engineering programs I have been a part of, the hands-on component cannot currently be replicated by a LLM. This is a huge differentiator: being able to work in the tangible world, with all its imprecision and messiness.
• Produces a reportable assessment of your skills, either against your peers or against a common standard. You get a diploma, which matters a lot in some fields. Even passing a particular class (like the Embedded Systems course I taught) is good enough to get a foot in the door some times.
• Grows your network. This is just as important professionally as it is socially to meet people and develop relationships you take into the next part of your life. You get to define a new identity in college that you can use to navigate the next part of your personal and professional life.
• Develops your ability to work in a team. In engineering, this is crucial.

So, I think I've made a case for why sticking with higher education has many benefits. But now let me ask the real hard question:

Is that what the university system is selling? Is that where it's going? And most importantly, are there other pathways that check all those boxes?

PS: If this post hurts your feelings, it's not meant to. I'm trying to stir the pot and make you think, not judge your worth. :)