Post

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.

"These skills, paired with a mindset of lifelong learning, prepare resilient, resourceful individuals to meet future challenges" This is embarrassing. I just spoke with a high school senior who told me first year students at their school use ChatGPT for everything school-related. That's FAILURE.

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.

"Districts should establish ethics committees that include educators, parents, students and experts to provide oversight of advanced technology integration." Good sign me up. Give us power to shut this down. LET'S GO! But you don't say what power these ethics committees should actually HAVE.

"Users must recognize the environmental impact of advanced technologies and promote sustainable practices within educational settings" Again, laughably offensive. Shifting responsibility for massive environmental damage by corporations onto consumers. No. Individuals can't fix this. Ban "A.i."

"Sustainable procurement practices, such as favoring companies with green initiatives and environmentally friendly products, demonstrate a commitment to environmental stewardship." This is embarrassingly inadequate. Bullshit corporate greenwashing will not wash this problem off your hands.

The document describes an actual course in which students used ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, and Canva to develop a presentation about a venue of their creation for an event planning/tourism class. Everything described could be done just fine WITHOUT "A.i." This is an unnecessary product.

The "A.i." products used created a slicker final presentation. But slickness means nothing in education. Only thought and creativity and work. You're cheating kids of actual creative work, turning them into button operators instead of thinkers and doers. Shame on you.

In the "Other Resources" section of the document, you only provide links to corporations pushing their "A.i." tools. Nothing about the negative effects of "A.i." or ways to counteract them. Just promotion. Shameful.

As far as generative AI goes I am an abolitionist: This includes basically anything that creates something from a human text prompt input, including: Chat Bots AI Image Generators AI Video Generators Voice Generators (excluding those based on Pre-AI Vocaloid/Vocoder/Sampler tech)

This particularly applies to LLM, but also to Large Matrix and Large Tensor monolithic brute force models as well. I am a total abolitionist of ALL monolithic brute force machine learning

This places me as an abolitionist of two classes of tech: 1. Monolithic Very Large Model Brute Force 2. Generative Output I determine 1 by if the node count during training exceeds that of a workstation grade GPU. I determine 2 on if it attempts to Create as oppose to Detect, Tune or Decode

Well said. I've been against this tech being placed in schools ever since a horrifying conference where a local principal... A) bragged about his requiring English teachers to teach prompt writing B) complained about a cheating epidemic which he blamed on young people not wanting to work anymore.