Comment

Comment on A generation taught not to think: AI in the classroom

mechoman444@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

This is interesting. This entire post reads like a hot take from the poster themselves, unsupported by any actual article. While there are some linked sources, the author fails to specify what kind of AI is being discussed or how it is being used in the classroom. Overall, the post appears to be little more than anti-AI ragebait. More telling is that commenters attempting to inject nuance or level-headed discussion are being downvoted simply because they are not explicitly anti-AI. Frankly, the anti-AI rhetoric on this platform is becoming incoherent, nonsensical, and increasingly idiotic. Many of the loudest critics clearly have no understanding of what it is they claim to dislike.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Jason2357@lemmy.ca ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Are you familiar with a social media site where it’s common to post well-researched and cited position papers? A rant is about what I expect in a place like this. The goal, I think, is to start a discussion -which is where your commentors injecting nuance or level headed opinions comes in. I personally don’t know what the solution is, but students using AI is an incredible experiment being conducted on the next generation. No one has anything but an opinion, because there’s no outcome data yet. My opinion is that it is scary as hell.

source
- mechoman444@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I agree that Lemmy isn’t a venue for peer reviewed position papers, and I’m not asking for one. But “it’s a rant” doesn’t exempt an argument from basic clarity. Informal discussion still benefits from naming what you’re actually worried about.
  
  Calling this an “experiment” on the next generation is fair. Saying it’s “scary as hell” is also fair. What’s missing and what people are reacting to is why and how. Is the concern skill atrophy, academic integrity, surveillance, equity, or something else entirely? Those distinctions matter if the goal is discussion rather than venting.
  
  Also, “no one has anything but an opinion” isn’t quite true. We don’t have long-term outcome data, but we do have analogs: calculators, spellcheck, search engines, LMS tools, and early AI pilots. That context doesn’t settle the debate, but it does constrain it.
  
  I’m not dismissing fear or uncertainty. I’m pushing back on the idea that vagueness is a virtue. If nuance is welcome in the comments, as you say it is, then the original framing should at least give people something concrete to engage with. Otherwise, the discussion predictably devolves into vibes and outrage, which helps no one.
  
  source
- Disillusionist@piefed.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  A very nuanced and level-headed response, thank you.
  
  source
  - mechoman444@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    There is nothing nuanced or level-headed about his response.
    
    Don’t get all salty because I negatively critique your post.
    
    source
Disillusionist@piefed.world ⁨9⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

While there are some linked sources, the author fails to specify what kind of AI is being discussed or how it is being used in the classroom.

One of the important points is that there are no consistent standards or approaches toward AI in the classroom. There are almost as many variations as there are classrooms. It isn’t reasonable to expect a comprehensive list of all of them, and it’s neither the point nor the scope of the discussion.

I welcome specific and informed counterarguments to anything presented in this discussion, I believe many of us would. I frankly find it ironic how lacking in “nuance or level-headed discussion” your own comment seems.

source
- mechoman444@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  I don’t disagree that there’s no single, unified standard for AI use in classrooms. That’s obvious and not controversial. But that point doesn’t actually address the criticism being made.
  
  “No consistent standards” is not a license to be vague. You don’t need an exhaustive list of every classroom implementation to name which AI tools you’re talking about, how they’re being used, or what specific harms you’re alleging. Minimum specificity is not the same thing as total coverage, and pretending otherwise is a dodge.
  
  Appealing to “scope” here also feels convenient. Scope is a choice made by the author. If the scope of an argument can’t tolerate basic clarification, then the argument itself is underdeveloped. Complexity does not excuse imprecision.
  
  As for the irony comment, asking for clarity, definitions, and informed counterarguments is nuance. What’s missing from this discussion isn’t level-headedness it’s commitment to concrete claims. Abstract complaints about “AI in the classroom” without operational detail aren’t thoughtful critiques; they’re nothing more than feelings.
  
  You’ve offered nothing with your response except visceral. Do you have anything to add to the conversation aside from the fact that you obviously don’t like AI??
  
  source
  - Disillusionist@piefed.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
    If the problem you have is specifics, I could flip your tactic around and ask you to point to a specific “kind of AI [that] is being discussed or how it is being used” that supports your stance on why we shouldn’t be discussing this, which is what you’ve implied. But that’s playing games with you, like what you’re doing with us.
    
    Your engagement on this issue is still clearly in bad faith, so instead I will point out that the burden of proof you’re demanding is weak within the context of this discussion. It reads like a common troll play where they attempt to draw a mark down a rabbit hole. It shouldn’t be too difficult for you to do an internet search or tap your own personal experiences, especially as intensely passionate about this issue you are.
    
    Understand that I don’t play these games. This is me leaving you to your checkerboard. Take care.
    
    source