LOL… Thats perfect…. I’d love you to vote on the AI debate here on Substack right here and give any thoughts you have. I love that graphic and completely agree.
Thanks for writing this, Alexa. I agree with much of what you say in this passionate defence of human-written words. However, you say you respect your colleagues, but the tone of this piece suggests otherwise—that you think you're right and they're wrong.
There are many reasons to use AI beyond the two binary options you suggest. I use it because I care deeply about the people who read my articles, and I want to communicate my ideas clearly to them. When the focus is on quality, and you give the chatbot your first draft, I've found that, in almost all cases, my writing is several times better than it would have been otherwise. I suspect that your colleagues who prepared their statements using AI did so because they needed to clarify their thinking on the topic. After all, this is a wicked problem. In my view, this is a good use of AI: as a thinking partner or editor.
I'm glad that, in the end, you found some sacred space for conversation (to borrow a term from Sherry Turkle). Less righteous judgment and more open, honest dialogue with both students and staff is obviously the best way to make progress on this thorny issue.
Alexa, I love the tone of this piece, as I see you using tongue-in-cheek tone and humor to convey your feelings and to illustrate the arc of your thought process as you move from the beginning to the end of the piece. The tone here humanizes you, and is deeply relatable. And thinking someone is wrong (ie: your position at the top of the article, which shifts by the end) is not the same thing as not respecting them. I took away from this piece that you deeply respect your colleagues, which is why you were so miffed at their embrace of AI. You know them well and know they can do better.
Laura, to be clear, I'm not saying Alexa doesn't respect their colleagues; I'm just saying the article's angry tone might suggest otherwise, especially if one of their colleagues reads it. The behaviour they describe (see excerpt below) hardly sounds like respectful debate, and I don't think we should be celebrating it:
During our mandatory school-wide professional development (PD) sessions on how to use the institutionally-contracted chatbot, I am the problem. I smugly make a mess in the Zoom chat, pick fights with adopters, post links to Wikipedia articles on technodeterminism and the ELIZA effect, joyously smash machines, so to speak.
I read this, again, as tongue-in-cheek and provocative. You're having thoughts and feelings about the article, so it seems like the tone and the nature of the writing here has done its job. Plus, someone writing about being smug and picking fights - essentially saying, "hey, I know I have flaws and faults" - makes them a more reliable narrator and makes the payoff at the end of the article - the fact that they came around to connect with their colleagues - bigger and more rewarding. This is all the quality of good, human writing that captures the wholeness of the author (something AI probably can't do)
Yes, I think the article is provocative and well written. However, if you had to deal with this level of angst from academics regarding AI, you'd probably feel differently about this kind of behaviour. It gets tired very quickly, especially when it's your job to support the use of technology in an educational setting.
LOL… Thats perfect…. I’d love you to vote on the AI debate here on Substack right here and give any thoughts you have. I love that graphic and completely agree.
https://substack.com/@guidedlightoasis/note/p-192123354?r=6ueqhh&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
Thanks for writing this, Alexa. I agree with much of what you say in this passionate defence of human-written words. However, you say you respect your colleagues, but the tone of this piece suggests otherwise—that you think you're right and they're wrong.
There are many reasons to use AI beyond the two binary options you suggest. I use it because I care deeply about the people who read my articles, and I want to communicate my ideas clearly to them. When the focus is on quality, and you give the chatbot your first draft, I've found that, in almost all cases, my writing is several times better than it would have been otherwise. I suspect that your colleagues who prepared their statements using AI did so because they needed to clarify their thinking on the topic. After all, this is a wicked problem. In my view, this is a good use of AI: as a thinking partner or editor.
I'm glad that, in the end, you found some sacred space for conversation (to borrow a term from Sherry Turkle). Less righteous judgment and more open, honest dialogue with both students and staff is obviously the best way to make progress on this thorny issue.
Alexa, I love the tone of this piece, as I see you using tongue-in-cheek tone and humor to convey your feelings and to illustrate the arc of your thought process as you move from the beginning to the end of the piece. The tone here humanizes you, and is deeply relatable. And thinking someone is wrong (ie: your position at the top of the article, which shifts by the end) is not the same thing as not respecting them. I took away from this piece that you deeply respect your colleagues, which is why you were so miffed at their embrace of AI. You know them well and know they can do better.
Laura, to be clear, I'm not saying Alexa doesn't respect their colleagues; I'm just saying the article's angry tone might suggest otherwise, especially if one of their colleagues reads it. The behaviour they describe (see excerpt below) hardly sounds like respectful debate, and I don't think we should be celebrating it:
During our mandatory school-wide professional development (PD) sessions on how to use the institutionally-contracted chatbot, I am the problem. I smugly make a mess in the Zoom chat, pick fights with adopters, post links to Wikipedia articles on technodeterminism and the ELIZA effect, joyously smash machines, so to speak.
I read this, again, as tongue-in-cheek and provocative. You're having thoughts and feelings about the article, so it seems like the tone and the nature of the writing here has done its job. Plus, someone writing about being smug and picking fights - essentially saying, "hey, I know I have flaws and faults" - makes them a more reliable narrator and makes the payoff at the end of the article - the fact that they came around to connect with their colleagues - bigger and more rewarding. This is all the quality of good, human writing that captures the wholeness of the author (something AI probably can't do)
Yes, I think the article is provocative and well written. However, if you had to deal with this level of angst from academics regarding AI, you'd probably feel differently about this kind of behaviour. It gets tired very quickly, especially when it's your job to support the use of technology in an educational setting.