> 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?
> 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?