{"channel":"llm","content":"https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-mania-in-schools-part\r\n\r\nA variety of arguments against AI, some of which are more compelling than others.\r\n\r\nThe exact language: << why teachers may resist being rushed into this latest edtech mania >>. *May resist* is a phrase that, presumably deliberately, avoids endorsing any of these reasons. Which is good, since some of the reasons are ludicrous and should be ignored.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n1. The argument of ineffectiveness.\r\n\r\n<< learning management systems (LMS) sold to schools over the past decade-plus as time-savers aren\u2019t delivering on making teaching easier. Instead, they found this tech (e.g. Google Classroom, Canvas) is often burdensome and contributes to burnout >> ( the difference is that the *machine* is effective, and the tools from 10 years ago were not.)\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n2. The argument of futility.\r\n\r\n<< it\u2019s easy to suspect that any time saved (or assumed to be saved) by AI tools will provide permission to add students to rosters and duties to schedules. >>\r\n\r\nI mean, the Red Queen's Race argument isn't completely *wrong*. But, it isn't a reason to ignore the technology.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n3. The argument of human actualization.\r\n\r\n<< teachers are being prodded to use AI tools to (at least partially) replace some of the most intellectual, creative, core components of the profession >>\r\n\r\nYes. This insidious argument that we can't have the *machine* do tasks that we want humans to do is bad, and must be rejected.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n4. The argument of sexism.\r\n\r\n<< teachers who are women are, like women across fields, susceptible to being painted as afraid of AI >> ( do I really have to respond to this nonsense?)\r\n\r\nThis is really an argument against other people. I'm certainly not saying \"women are rejecting AI because of their feminine nature\", and I'm not sure who is.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n5. The argument against anti-Luddism.\r\n\r\n<< few want to feel out of touch\u2014or as though they aren\u2019t one of the cool kids in the know about where the party is >>\r\n\r\nThis is, once again, responding to an argument that I'm not making. Nobody is saying you have to use it *now*.\r\n\r\nBut, if you want to be \"cutting-edge\" regarding technology, you do have to use it. That is what \"cutting-edge\" means. An argument that this is unfair because people who want to \"be cool\" have to engage with the *machine* ... is, once again, not worth engaging with.","created_at":"2025-03-13T19:08:11.024511","id":305,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":null,"processed_content":"

https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-mania-in-schools-part\r

\n

A variety of arguments against AI, some of which are more compelling than others.\r

\n

The exact language: why teachers may resist being rushed into this latest edtech mania. May resist is a phrase that, presumably deliberately, avoids endorsing any of these reasons. Which is good, since some of the reasons are ludicrous and should be ignored.\r

1. The argument of ineffectiveness.\r

\n

learning management systems (LMS) sold to schools over the past decade-plus as time-savers aren\u2019t delivering on making teaching easier. Instead, they found this tech (e.g. Google Classroom, Canvas) is often burdensome and contributes to burnout \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( the difference is that the machine is effective, and the tools from 10 years ago were not.)\n \r

2. The argument of futility.\r

\n

it\u2019s easy to suspect that any time saved (or assumed to be saved) by AI tools will provide permission to add students to rosters and duties to schedules.\r

\n

I mean, the Red Queen's Race argument isn't completely wrong. But, it isn't a reason to ignore the technology.\r

3. The argument of human actualization.\r

\n

teachers are being prodded to use AI tools to (at least partially) replace some of the most intellectual, creative, core components of the profession\r

\n

Yes. This insidious argument that we can't have the machine do tasks that we want humans to do is bad, and must be rejected.\r

4. The argument of sexism.\r

\n

teachers who are women are, like women across fields, susceptible to being painted as afraid of AI \n \ud83d\udd25\n ( do I really have to respond to this nonsense?)\n \r

\n

This is really an argument against other people. I'm certainly not saying \"women are rejecting AI because of their feminine nature\", and I'm not sure who is.\r

5. The argument against anti-Luddism.\r

\n

few want to feel out of touch\u2014or as though they aren\u2019t one of the cool kids in the know about where the party is\r

\n

This is, once again, responding to an argument that I'm not making. Nobody is saying you have to use it now.\r

\n

But, if you want to be \"cutting-edge\" regarding technology, you do have to use it. That is what \"cutting-edge\" means. An argument that this is unfair because people who want to \"be cool\" have to engage with the machine ... is, once again, not worth engaging with.

","quotes":[],"subject":"contra Anne Fernandez, part 1"}