{"channel":"llm","content":"https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-in-education-part-iii\r\n\r\nThe final part (at least for now).\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n11. \"Personalized education\" cannot work.\r\n\r\nThere is a very blatant logical fallacy here: << some personalized systems don't work >> does not prove that << all personalized systems don't work >>. Beyond that (and some begging-the-question), there is no argument.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n12. The argument for the human touch.\r\n\r\n<< children deserve personal care. >>\r\n\r\nOnce again, there is no real argument here, just a value-system that assumes the *machine* is evil. Which isn't an argument at all. ( you can't hug children with nuclear arms!)\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n13. The argument that Democracy is Bad.\r\n\r\nI must admit that I don't follow this section. She is objecting to << one conservative think-tanker exclaims, \u201cSo if the internet democratized access to information, the analogy essentially is AI is democratizing access to expertise.\u201d >> The argument is then that, because Trump, this is bad.\r\n\r\nI have no desire to engage with those who want Samson to tear down the temple.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the more charitable argument is << AI is bad because it might not support my personal political views >>. Which ... clearly, it won't support *somebody*'s views. And I don't want to deal with the far-left's *entitlement* on this matter.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n14. The argument against cost-efficiency.\r\n\r\nRoughly, that the *machine* is bad, because it means we will spend less on teachers for the same results.\r\n\r\nAs far as \"the technology is evil because it's inventors were evil\": I assume Ms. Fernandez is not walking everywhere because of Henry Ford's political views.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\nUltimately, at this point, I must desist from even engaging at a distance. This series has become << Trump derangement >> in its worst form. \"Trump is the future, so the future is bad\" is not about AI.","created_at":"2025-03-13T19:28:11.504735","id":307,"llm_annotations":{},"parent_id":306,"processed_content":"

https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-in-education-part-iii\r

\n

The final part (at least for now).\r

11. \"Personalized education\" cannot work.\r

\n

There is a very blatant logical fallacy here: some personalized systems don't work does not prove that all personalized systems don't work. Beyond that (and some begging-the-question), there is no argument.\r

12. The argument for the human touch.\r

\n

children deserve personal care.\r

\n

Once again, there is no real argument here, just a value-system that assumes the machine is evil. Which isn't an argument at all. \n \ud83d\udd25\n ( you can't hug children with nuclear arms!)\n \r

13. The argument that Democracy is Bad.\r

\n

I must admit that I don't follow this section. She is objecting to one conservative think-tanker exclaims, \u201cSo if the internet democratized access to information, the analogy essentially is AI is democratizing access to expertise.\u201d The argument is then that, because Trump, this is bad.\r

\n

I have no desire to engage with those who want Samson to tear down the temple.\r

\n

Perhaps the more charitable argument is AI is bad because it might not support my personal political views. Which ... clearly, it won't support somebody's views. And I don't want to deal with the far-left's entitlement on this matter.\r

14. The argument against cost-efficiency.\r

\n

Roughly, that the machine is bad, because it means we will spend less on teachers for the same results.\r

\n

As far as \"the technology is evil because it's inventors were evil\": I assume Ms. Fernandez is not walking everywhere because of Henry Ford's political views.\r

Ultimately, at this point, I must desist from even engaging at a distance. This series has become Trump derangement in its worst form. \"Trump is the future, so the future is bad\" is not about AI.

","quotes":[],"subject":"contra Anne Fernandez, part 3"}