Comment on A generation taught not to think: AI in the classroom
Disillusionist@piefed.world 5 days agoWhile 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.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 days 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??
Disillusionist@piefed.world 5 days 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.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 5 days ago
So you’re not going to address anything that I’ve said at all aside from you don’t like it.
Good day to you sir.