more arguments, for another blog°hard word post: https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-mania-in-schools-part-baf
----
6. The argument of inevitable°hard word change.
I took a business elective°hard word where a lot of time was spent°hard word learning how to operate°hard word a keypunch°hard word machine ... not one was interested in my ability°hard word to use a then°hard word obsolete°hard word data entry°hard word method°hard word
I'm not sure what curriculum is being argued°hard word against, but it does sound bad. trying to revamp°hard word classes and schools for a rapidly°hard word evolving technology°hard word isn't a good idea.
But, many of the capacities°hard word of LLMs°hard word are not going to change. It is the equivalent°hard word of a 1970s teacher claiming°hard word that calculators are a new fad°hard word, that we shouldn't invest°hard word too much effort in them because you never know how the future will change. ⚔️ 50 years later, unsurprisingly°hard word, math education still needs to account for the existence of calculators
----
7. The argument of head-in-the-sand°hard word.
Is it my responsibility°hard word as an English°hard word teacher to teach students°hard word how to use AI°hard word? I already have a basketful°hard word of responsibilities°hard word—and AI°hard word is working against them. My core°hard word mission°hard word includes°hard word teaching students°hard word how to (actually) read and (actually) think about and discuss what they read; to (actually) analyze°hard word rhetoric°hard word and literature°hard word; to (actually) conduct°hard word (their own) research°hard word; and to express°hard word (their original°hard word) thoughts in writing. 💡 the math teacher might as well claim°hard word their job is to teach math, not technology like a calculator
Obviously, your job is to teach them to not use AI°hard word, when that is necessary to create the space to learn how to read, think etc°hard word.
Simply saying "it's someone else's°hard word problem" is a dereliction°hard word of duty°hard word I will not engage°hard word with.
----
8. The argument of "but the environment°hard word".
9. The argument of "but the workers".
10. The argument of "but copyright°hard word".
It must ignore°hard word this because—setting much else aside, including°hard word the industry’s abuses°hard word of copyright°hard word and of workers—AI°hard word’s environmental°hard word abuses°hard word alone mean there is no such thing as ethical°hard word AI°hard word use in most classrooms°hard word.
All three of these arguments are in one sentence, and they are all bad.
As far as the environment°hard word: the LLMs°hard word that already exist, and can already be run on a MacBook°hard word Pro°hard word, are sufficient°hard word to change the world°hard word. No amount of whinging°hard word about the environment°hard word will stop that. The "we can't have good things because somebody°hard word is suffering" argument is also one I thoroughly°hard word reject°hard word.
As far as "abuse°hard word of workers" - you're making that up. Other than a pernicious°hard word "unions°hard word demand°hard word that the machine not cause layoffs°hard word", there is no abuse°hard word of workers.
And for copyright°hard word: I don't believe in Intellectual°hard word Property. The law will find that the transformative°hard word use of works for LLM°hard word training is, in some way, acceptable°hard word.