{"chain":[{"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,"is_target":false,"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.

","subject":"contra Anne Fernandez, part 1"},{"channel":"llm","content":"more arguments, for another blog post: https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-mania-in-schools-part-baf\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n6. The argument of inevitable change.\r\n\r\n<< I took a business elective where a lot of time was spent learning how to operate a keypunch machine ... not one was interested in my ability to use a then obsolete data entry method >>\r\n\r\nI'm not sure what *curriculum* is being argued against, but it does sound bad. << trying to revamp classes and schools for a rapidly evolving technology >> isn't a good idea.\r\n\r\nBut, many of the capacities of LLMs are not going to change. It is the equivalent of a 1970s teacher claiming that << calculators >> are a new fad, that we shouldn't invest too much effort in them because you never know how the future will change. ( 50 years later, unsurprisingly, math education still needs to account for the existence of calculators)\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n7. The argument of head-in-the-sand.\r\n\r\n<< Is it my responsibility as an English teacher to teach students how to use AI? I already have a basketful of responsibilities\u2014and AI is working against them. My core mission includes teaching students how to (actually) read and (actually) think about and discuss what they read; to (actually) analyze rhetoric and literature; to (actually) conduct (their own) research; and to express (their original) thoughts in writing. >> ( the math teacher might as well claim their job is to teach *math*, not *technology* like a calculator)\r\n\r\nObviously, your job is to teach them to *not* use AI, when that is necessary to create the space to learn how to read, think etc.\r\n\r\nSimply saying \"it's someone else's problem\" is a dereliction of duty I will not engage with.\r\n\r\n----\r\n\r\n8. The argument of \"but the environment\".\r\n9. The argument of \"but the workers\".\r\n10. The argument of \"but copyright\".\r\n\r\n<< It must ignore this because\u2014setting much else aside, including the industry\u2019s abuses of copyright and of workers\u2014AI\u2019s environmental abuses alone mean there is no such thing as ethical AI use in most classrooms. >>\r\n\r\nAll three of these arguments are in one sentence, and they are all bad.\r\n\r\nAs far as the environment: the LLMs that *already exist*, and can *already be run* on a MacBook Pro, are sufficient to change the world. No amount of whinging about the environment will stop that. The \"we can't have good things because somebody is suffering\" argument is also one I thoroughly reject.\r\n\r\nAs far as \"abuse of workers\" - you're making that up. Other than a pernicious \"unions demand that the *machine* not cause layoffs\", there is no abuse of workers.\r\n\r\nAnd for copyright: I don't believe in Intellectual Property. The law *will* find that the transformative use of works for LLM training is, in some way, acceptable.","created_at":"2025-03-13T19:19:08.458787","id":306,"is_target":false,"parent_id":305,"processed_content":"

more arguments, for another blog post: https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-mania-in-schools-part-baf\r

6. The argument of inevitable change.\r

\n

I took a business elective where a lot of time was spent learning how to operate a keypunch machine ... not one was interested in my ability to use a then obsolete data entry method\r

\n

I'm not sure what curriculum is being argued against, but it does sound bad. trying to revamp classes and schools for a rapidly evolving technology isn't a good idea.\r

\n

But, many of the capacities of LLMs are not going to change. It is the equivalent of a 1970s teacher claiming that calculators are a new fad, that we shouldn't invest too much effort in them because you never know how the future will change. \n \u2694\ufe0f\n ( 50 years later, unsurprisingly, math education still needs to account for the existence of calculators)\n \r

7. The argument of head-in-the-sand.\r

\n

Is it my responsibility as an English teacher to teach students how to use AI? I already have a basketful of responsibilities\u2014and AI is working against them. My core mission includes teaching students how to (actually) read and (actually) think about and discuss what they read; to (actually) analyze rhetoric and literature; to (actually) conduct (their own) research; and to express (their original) thoughts in writing. \n \ud83d\udca1\n ( the math teacher might as well claim their job is to teach math, not technology like a calculator)\n \r

\n

Obviously, your job is to teach them to not use AI, when that is necessary to create the space to learn how to read, think etc.\r

\n

Simply saying \"it's someone else's problem\" is a dereliction of duty I will not engage with.\r

8. The argument of \"but the environment\".\r

\n

9. The argument of \"but the workers\".\r

\n

10. The argument of \"but copyright\".\r

\n

It must ignore this because\u2014setting much else aside, including the industry\u2019s abuses of copyright and of workers\u2014AI\u2019s environmental abuses alone mean there is no such thing as ethical AI use in most classrooms.\r

\n

All three of these arguments are in one sentence, and they are all bad.\r

\n

As far as the environment: the LLMs that already exist, and can already be run on a MacBook Pro, are sufficient to change the world. No amount of whinging about the environment will stop that. The \"we can't have good things because somebody is suffering\" argument is also one I thoroughly reject.\r

\n

As far as \"abuse of workers\" - you're making that up. Other than a pernicious \"unions demand that the machine not cause layoffs\", there is no abuse of workers.\r

\n

And for copyright: I don't believe in Intellectual Property. The law will find that the transformative use of works for LLM training is, in some way, acceptable.

","subject":"contra Anne Fernandez, part 2"},{"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,"is_target":true,"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.

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