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.