Post

"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?

"This respect must be overt and never used without attribution." This is a badly written sentence that seems to say the "respect" should never be used without attribution, which makes no sense. But I gather you mean "A.i." generated material should never be used without attribution...

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?

"Engaging students with AI-driven projects encourages creativity, critical thinking and hands-on experience with advanced technologies." No. "A.i." products DESTROY creativity by telling kids their own minds and thoughts and hands are inadequate for producing worthwhile writing and art.

I'm a comics creator. Every time I lead a workshop with kids, I see their absolute joy in drawing with their OWN HANDS. If you deny kids that joy by forcing them to type prompts into a computer, you're failing as an educator. Shame on you for this.

"activities like coding and building simple AI models empower students as creators rather than passive consumers." Come on. The vast majority of kids aren't building "simple AI models." They're cheating throught ChatGPT and generating bad "A.i." illustrations. Please don't insult us.

Getting ChatGPT to churn out homework answers does not endow anyone with "a mindset of lifelong learning." I feel sick even typing this.

"Schools should engage with all stakeholders—including technology companies, legislators, school district leadership, parents and the community—to create policies and guidelines for use of advanced technology." Why are technology companies listed first? Why should they help with guidelines?

"Schools and districts should only partner with technology providers that prioritize safety, privacy and inclusivity in their products." Yes. Good. That means NONE OF THEM. None of the companies you have partnered with meet this challenge. By your own guidelines, you must sever your ties.