We can't really say this enough... > Anastasia Berg [at UCL Irvine] said that new research — and what she's hearing directly from colleagues across various industries — shows that employees who heavily rely on AI are losing core skills at a startling rate. www.businessinsider.com/ai-tools-are...
Post
Let's play a game, read my paper and tell me which argument of yours it doesn't address ☺️ bsky.app/profile/oliv...
7. the kinda appealing, but substantively indefensible, idea that somehow AI is different to other technology, like calculators, in a pedagogical context — but we totally ban a great deal of technology in the classroom. (Section 3.7 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...) 9/n
You're now doing a mix of this one bsky.app/profile/oliv... Annddd....
6. the extremely unhinged series of claims that without training them on how to be users of such systems that we somehow fail as teachers — truly ludicrous, utterly bizarre, and in fact directly contradicts other industry selling points. (Section 3.6 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...) 8/n
This one! bsky.app/profile/oliv...
2. the strange but often repeated cultish mantra that we need to "embrace the future" — this is so bizarre given, e.g. how destructive industry forces have proven to be in science, from petroleum to tobacco to pharmaceutical companies. (Section 3.2 here doi.org/10.5281/zeno...) 4/n
You are totally right; I am doing that one, because the fact that you claim "the tide can be turned" does not, in fact, prove that the tide can be turned. The Dutch didn't uninvent the car, people still smoke, and there's a vaping epidemic. You don't have to embrace the future, but you can't ban it.
Nothing is more docile than a proletariat unequipped to frame their own arguments, relegated to fact-checking a denial of service machine.
9 reposts37 likes