Post

Thanks for sharing this document, @rweingarten.bsky.social. I read it, and I believe it's inexcusably inadequate and will not prepare teachers or schools to confront the very real dangers of the "A.i." products pushed by your partners, including OpenAI. A few thoughts for your consideration...

The document does not mention the suicides and deaths associated with "A.i." products produced by your partners. It does not address the cognitive decline associated with these "A.i." products. It does not address the fact that Trump is pushing these companies to make these LLMs more right wing.

The document does not address the fact that right wing billionaires control these products and, as Musk has proven, can use them to literally push Nazi propaganda.

At various points, the document gives lip service to the need to educate students about the possibility of disinformation or other harms. But it puts all of the responsibility for this on teachers, not on the billionaires pushing this miserable tech. This is an anti-teacher document, in my opinion.

Some specific points: The document says "When appropriate, educators and school systems can use technology to create and grade assessments, saving time and allowing immediate feedback." No. No one wants to be or deserves to be graded by "A.i."

You are painting a vision of a future in which teachers create lessons with "A.i.," students complete them with "A.i.," and teachers grade them with "A.i." No learning takes place under this system. The only benefactors of this system are the corporations being paid for the "A.i." products.

The document says: "Technology accelerates constantly. Schools must prioritize continuous, high-quality professional learning so educators can adapt their teaching methods accordingly." This sounds like an additional burden on schools that are already being defunded that just benefits corporations.

"Elected officials must ensure that funding for technology and training is readily at hand. Schools must allocate those funds in ways that prioritize student learning." No. Elected officials must increase the number of teachers and their pay, and fund arts programs. "A.i." should get no money.

While discussing cheating, the document says "Software tools are available to help determine the use of AI." This is a woefully inadequate suggestion - software tools are notoriously providing false positives and sometimes penalizing students who actually do their own thinking and writing.

The document says, "Educators must learn how they can use AI to simplify their working lives." Now you are demanding teachers use "A.i." Educators don't need to use "A.i." Educators need to be paid more. Not to enrich corporations by using untested, dangerous "A.i." products.

"Educators, educational leaders and unions must continually approach federal, state and local governments to secure funding for technology and training..." You want teachers to push electeds to give more money to tech corps instead of teachers? No. Forget "A.i." Just pay TEACHERS more.

"Schools must adopt effective filters to block inappropriate or misleading content." What filters block misleading content from ChatGPT? Is there a "no disinfo" or "no faked citations" or "no hallucinations" filter? There is not. This is poisoned tech. You have to block the entire product.

"Schools should select and utilize technology designed to flag potential misinformation, highlight key claims for verification and provide transparency into how conclusions were drawn." Please provide examples of the magical technology that will do all of this. (It does not exist.)

"Students will have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of any content they retrieve or generate." STUDENTS will have the responsibility to ensure the accuracy of the falsehood-generation machines you've thrust upon them? Students who have not learned through actual instruction what is real?

This is frankly obscene. A form of victim blaming. You cannot ethically put a lying machine into a classroom, tell students who have not LEARNED the actual MATERIAL being discussed to interact with it, and then demand that these students determine what is a lie and what is true. Shameful.

"With AI technologies, it’s important to understand that it is common for models to have biases based on the prejudices found in human-created content." True! Although I would replace "common for models to have" with "nearly always the case that models have." And then...

"School and district leaders should encourage continuous discussions about AI fairness and bias to help students combat inequality that is perpetrated by technology." Again, you are asking schools to do the impossible job of cleaning up toxic waste created by corporations.

Schools cannot compete with these propaganda machines through "discussions about AI fairness." These "A.i." products are replicating racist and bigoted biases in insidious and subtle ways that teachers might not even be aware of. And what happens when a billionaire cranks up the racism dial?

"Users of technology & AI should value the work of the people who created the content that technology uses to enhance learning. This respect must be overt & never used without attribution." You are personally insulting me with this unworkable & contemptuous passage. "A.i." companies have robbed me.

My books and the works of thousands of other creators have been stolen to feed these "A.i." machines. How do you propose teachers and students should "value the work of the people who created the content"? Will they send me a note? Money? Will they mournfully note the theft and carry on?

But this is an impossible injunction that reflects an embarrassing misunderstanding of the scale of theft these companies have indulged in. If a kid uses "A.i." to generate an image, the program is using a database that uses inputs from millions of stolen images created by thousands of creators.

How do you believe a child you've instructed to use this miserable technology should provide "attribution"? This, in my opinion, is an inexcusably hand-wavey attempt to paper over the question of theft based on a vast misunderstanding of the way this product works.

"Proper safety requirements, training and assurance of equity should be paramount before any technology is implemented for student use." Agreed. Reports link these "A.i." products to deaths, suicides, cognitive decline, and right wing propaganda. So let's NOT implement them for student use, right?