contra Anne Fernandez, part 2
more arguments, for another blog post: https://annelutzfernandez.substack.com/p/resisting-ai-mania-in-schools-part-baf
6. The argument of inevitable change.
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
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.
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. ⚔️ ( 50 years later, unsurprisingly, math education still needs to account for the existence of calculators)
7. The argument of head-in-the-sand.
Is it my responsibility as an English teacher to teach students how to use AI? I already have a basketful of responsibilities—and 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)
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.
Simply saying "it's someone else's problem" is a dereliction of duty I will not engage with.
8. The argument of "but the environment".
9. The argument of "but the workers".
10. The argument of "but copyright".
It must ignore this because—setting much else aside, including the industry’s abuses of copyright and of workers—AI’s environmental abuses alone mean there is no such thing as ethical AI use in most classrooms.
All three of these arguments are in one sentence, and they are all bad.
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.
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.
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.