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??