10 Reasons You Should Never Allow an AI-Phone at Dinner

The 10 listed are all pretty much "common sense," only differ in that they are (1) are more or less backed up with research, (2) most are predicated on AI being meaningfully in the mix, and (3) all were initially drafted by AI (Perplexity.) I have done extensive editing, both in content and research citations leaving the section themes in place  and inserting occasional "ME" comments.

 

Clker.com

1. An AI-Phone replaces a shared inquiry with singular, outsourced "consultations."

Dinner conversation inevitably includes questions two or more people explore together — Who was president in 1987? Research on AI-assisted trivia reveals that once an AI answer is presented, many tend to stop admitting "I don't know," even when the AI response does not seem correct or complete. Once AI is consulted, instead of thinking aloud together across the table, a shared puzzle becomes a private, quick "research" task, and the drift of the conversation may flounder temporarily to recover. [Me: from Psychology Today]

2. It suggests to dinner companion(s), in effect, that the AI is a trusted voice to be trusted . . . 

Clinical observerations have described a relational "injury," when a disagreement is settled by consulting AI rather than working it out with their companion. It can produce  feelings of distrust and having been overruled, implicitly considering the machine's judgment above that of the other person, and not infrequently, the iPhone's owner is given a slight "one up" as well in status. That's a kind of slight well beyond just checking a text message. It is stepping out of the flow — outsourcing the relationship's important "collaborative reasoning" function. [Me: another Psychology Today report]

3. It integrates in a third, unaccountable "authority" or persona into the conversation 

Philosophers studying AI-mediated communication describe AI answers as functioning as an "argument from authority." Once that voice is invoked, participants are no longer trying to persuade— they're answering to and perhaps contending with something that can be difficult to challenge successfully, or not worth the time to. [ME: that, of course, is not exactly the case with most chatbots; they can be at least probed as to their sources and process but . . . based on an technical 2026 article on Epistemics of AI byHoorn and Oosterglorenwoud]

4. It changes one of the potential underlying functions of a disagreement in conversation from collaboration to consultation.

Normal human disagreement is a dynamic process — two people testing ideas against each other, adjusting, sometimes changing their minds. Automation-bias research, first documented in aviation and clinical decision-making, shows that people almost systematically abandon their own effortful or critical  reasoning once an automated appears. At the table, that means the AI-phone doesn't just answer the question — it ends or at least compromises the process of disagreement, which may have other functions as well, such as play. [ME: from a 2011 review article]

5. It creates the sense of resolution without the important relational, time-tagged "leg work" and compromise that help provide the memory trail back later.

A 2025 blog post on AI epistemics coins the term "epistemia" — a condition where fluent, confident-sounding language substitutes for real evaluation, producing "the feeling of knowing without the labor of judgment". Applied to a conversation, that labor of judgment is the relational work — the negotiating, the listening, the occasional concession, all the nonverbal "dance" accompanying the talk — the AI-phone skips straight to a settled decision instead. [ME: from a brief, interesting piece in outline form]

6. It recasts "not knowing together" as more of a minor problem to be offloaded to AI and fixed, rather than a potentially memorable bonding experience.

Not knowing something traditionally used to be a low-stakes, even charming, part or strategy of getting closer— the shared "huh, let's think about that." Automation-bias research again shows that once an automated aid is in play, independent verification and reasoning almost by reflex are undermined as well.  Repeated, it slowly redefines uncertainty from something we "move through and explore together" into AI's standby responsibility. The emotional consequences or loss can be far reaching.  [ME: Same source article as in #4]

7. Even just sitting there on the table, innocuously, it comes to the conversation having cognitively transformed both it's owner all in the conversation . . . 

Studies of smartphone presence during conversation have found that a phone visible on the table — untouched, screen dark — measurably reduces how connected and satisfying people report the exchange to be. With an AI-phone specifically, that background presence functions less like a neutral object and more like a silent third participant who could, at any moment, spring forth and out-argue even the sharpest. (based on a 2024 article by Roach and Coughlin.) (That is not even to mention the widely discussed, but generally overblown problems with spyware surreptitiously installed on smartphone to listen in when the phone is not on.)

8. Rewiring baseline expectations for what counts as "settled" and when. 

A 2026 survey on search-first behavior found people increasingly resolve questions before a conversation even happens, describing a broader shift from "mutual discovery" to "confirmation" (xperson) in everyday talk. Bring an AI-phone to dinner and that shift moves from *before* the conversation to inside it — every open question becomes something to confirm rather than something to explore with the person you're eating with. 

9. It's quietly dulling the reasoning skills relationships depends on.(see other posts!)

MIT researchers tracked people over four weeks and found that relying on AI for definitive, on-demand answers correlated with a measurable decline in unaided reasoning — while many participants believed they were getting sharper. Users who hand over open questions to the AI-phone are not just avoiding debate; their capacity to reason things out together, or alone, very likely erodes a little each time, as well. [ME: From The Guardian, but still an accurate report]

10. It turns persuasion — the dance of relationships — into mere citation.

Healthy relationships are cultivated on the slow work of persuading, listening, and occasionally being wrong in front of someone who respects you, regardless. Once the AI-phone becomes the default appeal to authority, persuasion gets replaced by a shared willingness, at least superficially, to accept whatever the bot says, without a thorough examination of the sources consulted and the line of argument leading to the bot's conclusion — which is a much thinner, relational way to arrive at agreement. The result is a take away that is analogous to a simple citation, without associated rationale. [ME: based on the same article as in #3 above.]

The takeaway: an AI-phone at dinner doesn't just distract — it inserts a confident, unaccountable third party into a space that used to belong entirely to the two (or several) at the table. Left in the other room, letting the argument about who really won the '87 World Series stay unresolved for a time — the unresolved, perhaps slightly annoying, but the working-it-out-together sensation is grounded in a virtually, genuine "higher" level of human intelligence than AI is yet to achieve . . . 

What do you expect? (A "Tsough" question for pronunciation teaching!)

Intriguing title of  recent piece/summary on ScienceDaily.com: "Flaw in Rubber Hand Illusion raise tsough questions for psychology" (a real double threat: not only a spelling miscue, but a grammar issue as well.)  Do those two little "glitches" affect your expectations as to what is in the article? Unavoidably, eh . . . and that is too bad. The research by Lush of University of Sussex being summarized is potentially paradigm shaking (original title): Demand Characteristics Confound the Rubber Hand Illusion.

From the summary: 

Clker.com

"The Rubber Hand Illusion, where synchronous brush strokes on a participant's concealed hand and a visible fake hand can give the impression of illusory sensations of touch and of ownership of the fake hand, has been cited in more than 5,000 articles since it was first documented more than 20 years ago."

What that appeared to establish early on is that the brain was in some sense "hard wired" to tranfer sensation throughout the body, as a function of consciousness. The problem, according to Lush, and demonstrated in the study, is that the results from experiments exploring that effect, may be hopeless biased by what are termed "demand characteristics," of the study, in effect (hypnotic-like) suggestion as to what the researcher expects to find and the subjects experience. 

In other words, subjects will do their best to exhibit the effect being elicited. In Lush's study, subjects' expectations for how they would respond to the "rubber hand", having read the original introductory protocols, were striking to the extent that they were biased in favor of experiencing the "ghost sensations" in the rubber hand. 

Since in haptic pronunciation teaching the hands play a central role in linking sound, gesture and concepts, we clearly have a "pony in this race" as well.

A couple of decades ago, in a piece on the role of suggestion in language teaching in the JALT Language Teacher, I cited a paragraph from a (then) popular student pronunciation book (bold-face, mine):

"Acquiring good pronunciation is the most difficult part of learning a new language. As you improve your articulation you have to learn to listen and imitate all over again. As with any activity you wish to do well, you have to practice, practice, practice, and then practice some more . Remember that you cannot accomplish good pronunciation overnight; improvement takes time. Some students may find it more difficult than others and will need more time than others to improve" (Orion, 1989, pp. xxiii-iv).

I went on to note: "In those . . . words and phrases . . . can you not hear echoes of that famous line above the door in Dante's Inferno, "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here?"

This relates back to two blog posts ago on "pronunciation preambles," that is the way instructors set up work in pronunciation. Human beings, at least most of them, are highly suggestable. They have to be to be capable of picking up subtle cues in their environment quickly and efficiently. Pronunciation teaching, and pronunciation, in general, has gotten a bad rap, some of it deservedly so, of course, but how it is presented to learners, consciously and subconsciously, makes an enormous difference in outcome.

A "slight of hand" in the truest sense. What are you suggesting?

Source: 

University of Sussex. (2020, April 10). Flaw in Rubber Hand Illusion raise tsough questions for psychology. ScienceDaily. Retrieved April 15, 2020 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/04/200410162432.htm

Easy pronunciation change? You'd better believe it!

One of the most striking findings of research on teacher cognition about pronunciation teaching is that, especially those newer to field often believe it to be REALLY hard, difficult and intimidating (e.g., Burri 2017). There is less (much less) research on why that should be the case--or on how that can be best moderated, or prevented to any extent. We are talking here primarily about expectations.

As usual, my "go to" source for understanding how to affect pronunciation change is . . . sport. Pronunciation change is a physical business, one that from my perspective is best approached from that perspective, at least initially. But here is a case where the right "metacognitive set" can be enormously important, such as in the case of a new study by Mothes, Leukel, Seelig and Fuchs titled, "Do placebo expectations influence perceived exertion during physical exercise?" summarized by ScienceDaily.com.

On the surface of it, the research confirmed the common sense notion that expectations can dramatically influence performance. One feature of the study, for example, was that wearing great looking compression tights, and believing that they "work" makes exercise less strenuous or at least one's perception of effort. Being an enthusiastic wearing of that athletic placebo, I have been all in and a believer for years . . .

But how can this make pronunciation teaching and change easier?  Easy. What students pick up from you about pronunciation change impacts more than just their perception of how difficult it is. In other words, it is at least as much the fault of the method and the instructor's personal, professional presence as it is the learner's ability and L1 meddling. To paraphrase the great Pogo observation: We have met the enemy (of pronunciation change) and it is . . . us!

I'd recommend that you begin with some kind of compression top that gets the right message across, of course . . . probably not something like the message conveyed in the following from the forward to Orion, 1989 (quoted in Acton, 1992):

"Acquiring good pronunciation is the most difficult part of learning a new language. As you improve your articulation you have to learn to listen and imitate all over again. As with any activity you wish to do well, you have to practice, practice, practice, and then practice some more . Remember that you cannot accomplish good pronunciation overnight; improvement takes time. Some students may find it more difficult than others and will need more time than others to improve ( pp. xxiii-iv)."

It is "easier" from a haptic perspective, depending on the extent to which you Train the body first! (Lessac, 1967) in pronunciation teaching and project the right message both verbally and non-verbally. The key element here is the physical basis of change, not just pronunciation itself, the significance of the research to in our work. Conceptually, it is important that that distinction is kept in mind (and body)!

So, what do your class expectations for ongoing pronunciation improvement feel like? How do you create and sustain that? I'm expecting some great comments/insights to follow here!

You'd better believe it!

Sources
Hendrik Mothes, Christian Leukel, Harald Seelig, Reinhard Fuchs. Do placebo expectations influence perceived exertion during physical exercise? PLOS ONE, 2017; 12 (6): e0180434 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180434

University of Freiburg. (2017, June 30). Sport feels less strenuous if you believe it's doing you good. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 4, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/06/170630105031.htm

Good to great pronunciation: the "happiness" model

One of the most challenging aspects of pronunciation work is the "meta-communicative" function of appropriately identifying change and then predicting what is next. I was struck by the analogy between that process and aspects of this 2012 study by Sheldon of University of Missouri-Columbia (Summarized by Science Daily) that suggests that sustaining happiness involves two main factors: " . . .   the need to keep having new and positive life-changing experiences and the need to keep appreciating what you already have and not want more too soon." (The validity of the study may, of course, be compromised by the fact that it involved 481 subjects living in the Riverside, California area . . . )

The criteria underlying that definition of "happiness" are wonderfully revealing, culturally "Californian" and near debilitating. Evolving pronunciation may not be correlated with many positive "life-changing" experiences, but the question of instructor and learner awareness of what the process is and how it is going is often crucial, especially at points such as the move from "good to great." (Collins' 2005 book, Good to Great, a business classic, describes that general threshold well.) In other words, it is often not the target that is the problem, but the surreal expectations involved. Western teaching methodology in general too easily relies on motivation to finish the job--or take responsibility for failure.  

There was a time, of course, when the bar of native speaker-like pronunciation was set impossibly high--for any number of reasons-- but at least it did give one a scale to work with.  But now that at least some (informed theorists and teachers) have accepted the target of "intelligible" speech, it has become easier to "appreciate what you have and not want more . . . " 

Clip art: Clker

Until there is considerably more change in societal attitudes and human nature, however, problematic pronunciation may still interfere with the need for positive, life-changing experiences, like going from a good job to a great one--or from English class to any job. You and your students happy with that? If not, what do you expect? More importantly, what do you expect them to expect? 

"Couch potato" pronunciation learning

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

So what if some students, for whatever reason, cannot or decide not to participate in your choral drills or (from a haptic perspective) "move" along with the model on the video or mirror your movements as you try to correct a mispronunciation? According to Science writer, Paul, that may not be as much of a problem as you might think. Apparently, your more passive learners, "couch potatoes" are capable of getting it, too--with a few conditions attached. Research cited by Paul suggests that it is helpful if they have previously been at least exposed to the movement pattern, even better if they have actually been through it physically in some manner. In addition, if they know what to expect or know what is coming, they may pick up more as well. (In one experiment just lying still during an fMRI, so their brain activity could be monitored, as they thought about a coming test on what they were to about to watch, showed both increased activity in related motor areas and enhanced retention of movement patterns later.) But then this final challenge to the more "unmoved":

"Lastly, Grafton of UC-Santa Barbara notes that as valuable as watching others can be, multiple studies have shown that “the benefit from learning by observing is never as strong as advantages derived from physical practice.' With apologies to the couch potatoes out there, sometimes you just need to get up and dance."

Of course, the irony here is that EHIEP uses video clips (the virtual breeding ground of couch potatoes) as the basis of instruction. Turns out that, if done right, the "medium" can indeed still be experienced as the  "massage," (and not just the message) as well!

Advice on pronunciation teaching: What do you expect?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

According to Warrington of Asia University, asking questions in a class discussion such as '“What do you need to learn in this class?” and “Why do you need to learn that?” offers an avenue for adult learners to express their preferences and desires about the kind of language they want to learn and how it is relevant to their lives."' Ever done that? If you have--and were satisfied that you had accomplished something--you might want to rethink that, according to research by Liu of UCSD and GAL of Northwestern. What they found was ""Stating expectations tended to make consumers focus on themselves and their own needs, and . . . (as a consequence) created a sense of distance between the participant and the organization . . . " Soliciting advice, on the other hand, " . . . tends to have an intimacy effect whereby the individual feels closer to the organization,"

So how do you achieve the right balance between setting up (often unrealistic) learner expectations and doing an effective needs analysis that serves the real needs of both you and your students? In pronunciation work that can be especially problematic because just conceptualizing what the learner's problems are is difficult enough for the instructor, let alone the learners.

If you must carry on that kind of dialogue involving pronunciation--and I generally do not recommend it--one of the better ways is to manage it in the appropriate channel: personal, pronunciation journals, not general class discussions. On the other hand, asking students for their ongoing input on how things are going and advice on how you could improve use of class time in a confidential format, based on clearly stated goals and objectives for the course,  can be enormously helpful, if done right, where expectations for that kind of openness and candor are invited and well established. So what do you expect? 

Effective pronunciation teacher?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Ever get the feeling that you need a little more professional development? Extracted from a 2009 University of Nottingham study by Day, Sammons and Kington, summarized by Science Daily, here are the main findings or criteria for being the "most effective teacher."(Stare at the pineapple from the previous post for a couple of minutes, take a couple of deep breaths, then rate yourself on a scale from "Whatever" to "Absolutely!") The most effective teachers are: 

• knowledgeable
• innovative
• skilful
• fun-loving
• caring
• supportive
• task-centered
• pupil-centred
• in a class of their own
• stimulate a pupil’s imagination
• challenge their views
• encourage them to do great things
• motivate them through tailored teaching practices
• ensure that every pupil feels a sense of achievement 
• ensure that every pupil feels valued as part of the class community
• create a positive climate for learning
• inspire pupils
• differentiate amongst pupils according to their abilities "where appropriate”
• differentiate amongst pupils according to their interests "where appropriate”
• give students more control over their learning
• give students more engagement in their learning
• give students more opportunities for success
• have great enthusiasm for their work
• have high aspirations for the success of every pupil
• have positive relations
• have high motivation
• have strong commitment 
• are resilient
• focus on building self esteem
• focus on engendering trust
• focus on maintaining respect.
• and . . . are not necessarily those with the most experience

It's lists like that that make you realize just how little you have accomplished in 40 years in the field . . . or simply wonder at what an incredible overachiever you are!

An "object lesson" in the use of gesture in pronunciation teaching

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Forgive the lame double entendre in the title of the blogpost--there is, nonetheless, a potentially useful finding (or insight) in this recent research on the interrelation between gesture and speech. (The equally lame title of the Science Dailey summary, "Gestures fulfill a big role in language," also does not do justice to the importance what is being investigated!) Although there have been numerous other studies that have explored the role of gesture in communication and the brain, this one highlights a slightly different perspective--which I like: the brain tends to expect speech to accompany gesture except when the hand is holding or manipulating an object. In pronunciation work the use of gadgets, machines and other "tools" is common place. For years I was an enthusiastic applier of many of them: rubber bands, balls, batons, pencils, boxing gloves, kazoos, sticks (some of which I still use occasionally), red gloves that look like tongues, plastic sink traps that go from mouth to ear, bananas, cuisenaire rods, marbles, plastic earthworms, juice harps, slide whistles, bongo drums, xylophones, desk tops, etc. As noted in earlier blogposts, even clapping hands in doing rhythm work may not be all that effective or efficient. (In EHIEP instruction, the use of objects is extremely limited, except in the case of initial focus on some problematic consonants.) If it is the case, that linking speech with objects may work against our natural neurological wiring, that touching an object in effect may serve to partially "ground out" auditory processing and memory, what might that imply for pronunciation teaching? Using such paraphernalia may be, at best,  little more than a gesture . . . 

Bad pronunciation teaching? What do you expect?

Clip art: Clker

Clip art: Clker

Can pronunciation instruction be too much fun? Can the expectations we set up early on work against us? Can drama and poetry work to improve accuracy be counterproductive? Maybe. (Note that I said accuracy there, not fluency.) The effect shows up in this study and others in various fields which have been linked here earlier: using "extreme"emotion to anchor change is a mixed bag; what is retained and the accuracy of it can go either way. If you have been around toddlers, golden retrievers or graduate students for long, you know the problem. The point of the correction may or may not be really understood or carried away--the anchor can be attached to almost anything in the experiential and visual field at the moment. It is, if nothing else, a matter of efficiency. In the linked Science Digest study by Murray at the Alberta School of Business, consumers with high expectations were, not surprisingly, more elated and more disappointed, depending on the result. The "other"group, the "conservatives," demonstrated a much narrower range of response. What is the potential "take away" from that? Of course, Know thy students!, and . . .  if you really do have your act together and have a very systematic approach to accuracy, be a cheer leader; if not, don't. 

Eliminating the "FATuous" from pronunciation teaching: the Jenny Craig approach

Good behavior change and integration systems all share certain basic features. If you have ever been on a serious diet, you know that most are simply useless. (New research seems to suggest that many actually make matters much worse in the long term.) Once you slip off the formula, you are "cooked." The systems that do "work" are those that effectively integrate lifestyle changes that persist once you are off "life support."

The Jenny Craig method, one of the oldest and most successful, has a well-tested "theory" or model. Its basic principles:
(1) Sensitizing the client to portion size--what amounts feel like in the hands,
(2) Establishing physical exercise regimen,
(3) Training in time (and priorities) management, scheduling in essentials,
(4) Providing (virtually) all food to the client initially--both taking away the "problem" of selecting/thinking about what to eat, and modelling effective nutritional meals and snacks, and
(5) Gradually establishing a new "thin" identity that embodies and integrates 1-3 as "permanently" as possible.

See the nice parallel there to EHIEP work--or any effective language instruction program? Pronunciation teaching advice in methods texts typically assumes that the "sweet, addictive, engaging, enlightening, and mind-blowing" classroom experience is where it is at. Not so. Simply the expectations created without clear strategies for accomplishing them run the gamut from frustrating to "FATuous," to put it mildly. For most--given the limited amount of time now recommended for pronunciation instruction, unless you have trained students in better managing their pronunciation work outside of the classroom, the chances of efficient integration happening are often "slim to none . .. "