| > If your peers are using AI and getting better grades, opting out is not a principled stand. It is a competitive disadvantage. > The students are not confused. They are trapped. > In this environment, choosing not to use AI is not intellectual integrity. It is self-sabotage. > Here is where the conversation gets genuinely uncomfortable. > The culprit was not artificial intelligence. It was standardised testing. > For them, cognitive offloading is not a convenience. It is a developmental short-circuit. > This is not merely a problem of laziness or moral failure. It is a predictable consequence (...) > These investments are not philanthropic gestures. They are strategic plays for long-term market dominance (...) > These are not neutral actors offering disinterested tools. They are companies with revenue models (...) > This is not a new insight. It is a well-established finding that anglophone education (...) > (...) AI is not a threat; it is an upgrade. > If, however, the purpose of education is to cultivate human beings (...) then the arrival of AI is not the crisis. It is the revelation that the crisis was already here. > Not more bans. Not more surveillance software. Not more hand-wringing opinion pieces from adults who themselves rely on AI for their professional work. > But the overreliance they fear is not a new phenomenon introduced by ChatGPT. It is the logical extension of an educational philosophy (...) The irony here is that the AI generated article gives a full throated endorsement of using LLMs to generate slop; why should we believe that the guy who prompted the LLM to generate slop that says slop generation is good did not himself use the slop generator? |