I think you will still end up with Power Hungy, insecure, amoral instructors. I dealt with this behavior constantly 20 years ago with my kids.....it didn't matter what the issue was, it all had the same root cause: "I am the boss, and you have to do what I say". Examples: I had one teacher have all the students write a positive political letter for an issue regarding the school and when my child wrote a negative letter she tried to refuse to accept it. Another time one of my children was with a group of students who had done something negative, behavior wise, and they decided to "group punish" (forcing all the students to write a letter apologizing for something they did not do, and giving them detention) everybody in the vicinity even though there was more than one adult witness who knew exactly who had been the offenders. And there were numerous occasions once they got into high school (the 1st two examples were during Elementary school!) where we ended up confronting critical race theory and LGBT agendas before they even had a name. Bottom line: America is not producing people with self control, morals, or integrity and therefore all schools are poison to children. Create a homeschool co-op, and get out of the system.
That is the implicit thesis. As a lifelong problem solver, problems are solved by disruptive information and thinking. If AI cannot be disruptive, then it is not intelligence, and becomes moot.
Or at least giving that appearance. But I doubt “AI” can actually “solve” anything that hasn’t already been.
Ask your favorite “AI” the following and see if it can “solve” it:
Prove or give a counter-example of the following statement:
In three space dimensions and time, given an initial velocity field, there exists a vector velocity and a scalar pressure field, which are both smooth and globally defined, that solve the Navier–Stokes equations.
It made me angry, and I had to curtail that anger and check to ensure it was not a reaction to anything in my own past - exactly Jerms. So, the meeting was calm and direct. It was tense, but delivered in very objective fashion.
"As long as we resist making AI the new authority, the future will favor those with the ability to think creatively, exercise deductive reasoning, and follow a critical path of probative questions."
Don't you mean the other way around? That it's precisely with the acceptance of AI as the new authority that the future will favor those with the ability to think creatively, exercise deductive reasoning, and follow a critical path of probative questions?
"During the meeting, her disdainful demeanor made it evident to me that she had been trained, as part of her professional development or upbringing, to harbor disdain toward a certain profile of individual. This, I observe, is not merely an educational issue but a deeper social and spiritual problem". First thing that came to my mind was old fashioned prejudice, some deep seated resentment that she targeted your son with. I bet she was unprepared for your well prepared countering of her unjust action, very impressive.
She was not prepared at all. You could tell it was the worst day of her life, experienced to date. She had been mollycoddled and told how correct she was her entire life. She was drunk on this little kingdom of power she had gained.
I recall writing a paper in college on the separation of church and state. Apparently, the extra effort I spent to be eloquent and coherent was seen as having been plagiarized (for being too good compared to the rest, perhaps) and this was reflected in my grade. After that I spent way less time on my papers and my grades went back up.
“As long as we resist making AI the new authority” -- this is what I fear will be the path most people (who are non-dissenters and unintelligent) will take, just as most people appeal to the authorities of religion and academia. I hope you are right that AI provides subversives with an alternative to pro forma conformity, but for many people the easiest option is to embrace AI as the latest authority, rather than independently resisting temptation.
I had a somewhat similar experience some years ago with my older daughter when she was in high school. My husband and I were English teachers at a local university. We both taught descriptive English grammar to future English teachers, among other things. Needless to say, our daughters were quite well prepared to edit their high school papers. The high school class was "honors" American literature, and the teacher had conceived an animosity toward my daughter for some unknown reason. She was not a disrespectful or disruptive student in any way, and she never had a problem with any other teacher. But this teacher got in the habit of marking my daughter's papers down for "grammar errors." What she would do is put checks next to the line in the paper for errors, and the student was supposed to figure out what the error(s) were and correct them. But of course, the "errors" were in this incompetent teacher's mind. I remember one paper that had FIVE checks next to one line when there were no errors at all in the line. My daughter begged me not to make a fuss, but I couldn't let that stand, so I confronted the teacher. Of course she could not point to a single error, but she got into a towering rage that she had been called out. (By the way, this teacher terrorized her students by not allowing them to ever use the verb "to be" in their papers. She said it was "lazy" to use "to be." She was of course too stupid to realize she was eliminating all progressive and perfect progressive verbs by issuing that edict. And this was an experienced teacher, not a newbie. But it was the same thing you noticed with your son's teacher--an evil soul who was stroking her own authoritarianism to get a thrill.)
When you mention “I presented an N-gram analysis that revealed around 70 professional publications containing the same seven-word phrase,” that should have totally exonerated your son as it proved the phrase to be in common usage. Another situation that students need to be aware of is that professors have electronic grading programs available to them where they don’t even have to read papers. I had a professor give me a failing grade when I used Old English to write a paper on Hamlet. I had to fight with the guy to get him read my paper and give me the A that I deserved. One last thing is that students rarely catch their professors plagiarizing their writing, but it happens. It is nearly impossible for a student to protect themselves from their original ideas being ripped off by a derelict instructor!
You're sharper than I am Mara. It took the Covid narrative for me to realize "how stupid most experts and professionals are." In the spirit of what Tes wrote about; I am refusing to use footnotes after quoting you. By the way, this happened to me in college as well. I used the wrong type of footnoting and lost 3 letter grades on a paper. It doesn't make any sense for an administrative error to be more important than the content of the paper. I protested and lost. The professor was the head of the department. Should have seen it coming.
When I see a headline that says "experts assert......"
I immediately refuse to read the article and presume the "experts" are "qualified" when they agreed to by "sell" the presumption or position of the publisher.
"Gaslighting" and it elder sibling "appeal to authority" are among the most common logical dilemmas.
Critical thinking asking "why is such and thus" so....? Demanding facts to satisfy each "why".
I think you will still end up with Power Hungy, insecure, amoral instructors. I dealt with this behavior constantly 20 years ago with my kids.....it didn't matter what the issue was, it all had the same root cause: "I am the boss, and you have to do what I say". Examples: I had one teacher have all the students write a positive political letter for an issue regarding the school and when my child wrote a negative letter she tried to refuse to accept it. Another time one of my children was with a group of students who had done something negative, behavior wise, and they decided to "group punish" (forcing all the students to write a letter apologizing for something they did not do, and giving them detention) everybody in the vicinity even though there was more than one adult witness who knew exactly who had been the offenders. And there were numerous occasions once they got into high school (the 1st two examples were during Elementary school!) where we ended up confronting critical race theory and LGBT agendas before they even had a name. Bottom line: America is not producing people with self control, morals, or integrity and therefore all schools are poison to children. Create a homeschool co-op, and get out of the system.
AI is not the answer. It is the Problem.
The difference between humans is not intelligence. Nor Education.
It is the ability to solve problems.
AI is ultimately removing problem-solving skills from humans.
That is the implicit thesis. As a lifelong problem solver, problems are solved by disruptive information and thinking. If AI cannot be disruptive, then it is not intelligence, and becomes moot.
Or at least giving that appearance. But I doubt “AI” can actually “solve” anything that hasn’t already been.
Ask your favorite “AI” the following and see if it can “solve” it:
Prove or give a counter-example of the following statement:
In three space dimensions and time, given an initial velocity field, there exists a vector velocity and a scalar pressure field, which are both smooth and globally defined, that solve the Navier–Stokes equations.
The answer will likely be telling.
Man the story about your kids teacher makes my blood boil. Lady shouldnt be anywhere near high school kids.
It made me angry, and I had to curtail that anger and check to ensure it was not a reaction to anything in my own past - exactly Jerms. So, the meeting was calm and direct. It was tense, but delivered in very objective fashion.
Emasculate young men and maturate vindictive young women. Nothing good shall this way come.
"As long as we resist making AI the new authority, the future will favor those with the ability to think creatively, exercise deductive reasoning, and follow a critical path of probative questions."
Don't you mean the other way around? That it's precisely with the acceptance of AI as the new authority that the future will favor those with the ability to think creatively, exercise deductive reasoning, and follow a critical path of probative questions?
"During the meeting, her disdainful demeanor made it evident to me that she had been trained, as part of her professional development or upbringing, to harbor disdain toward a certain profile of individual. This, I observe, is not merely an educational issue but a deeper social and spiritual problem". First thing that came to my mind was old fashioned prejudice, some deep seated resentment that she targeted your son with. I bet she was unprepared for your well prepared countering of her unjust action, very impressive.
She was not prepared at all. You could tell it was the worst day of her life, experienced to date. She had been mollycoddled and told how correct she was her entire life. She was drunk on this little kingdom of power she had gained.
I recall writing a paper in college on the separation of church and state. Apparently, the extra effort I spent to be eloquent and coherent was seen as having been plagiarized (for being too good compared to the rest, perhaps) and this was reflected in my grade. After that I spent way less time on my papers and my grades went back up.
It seems like bizarre case of data mining
“As long as we resist making AI the new authority” -- this is what I fear will be the path most people (who are non-dissenters and unintelligent) will take, just as most people appeal to the authorities of religion and academia. I hope you are right that AI provides subversives with an alternative to pro forma conformity, but for many people the easiest option is to embrace AI as the latest authority, rather than independently resisting temptation.
I had a somewhat similar experience some years ago with my older daughter when she was in high school. My husband and I were English teachers at a local university. We both taught descriptive English grammar to future English teachers, among other things. Needless to say, our daughters were quite well prepared to edit their high school papers. The high school class was "honors" American literature, and the teacher had conceived an animosity toward my daughter for some unknown reason. She was not a disrespectful or disruptive student in any way, and she never had a problem with any other teacher. But this teacher got in the habit of marking my daughter's papers down for "grammar errors." What she would do is put checks next to the line in the paper for errors, and the student was supposed to figure out what the error(s) were and correct them. But of course, the "errors" were in this incompetent teacher's mind. I remember one paper that had FIVE checks next to one line when there were no errors at all in the line. My daughter begged me not to make a fuss, but I couldn't let that stand, so I confronted the teacher. Of course she could not point to a single error, but she got into a towering rage that she had been called out. (By the way, this teacher terrorized her students by not allowing them to ever use the verb "to be" in their papers. She said it was "lazy" to use "to be." She was of course too stupid to realize she was eliminating all progressive and perfect progressive verbs by issuing that edict. And this was an experienced teacher, not a newbie. But it was the same thing you noticed with your son's teacher--an evil soul who was stroking her own authoritarianism to get a thrill.)
When you mention “I presented an N-gram analysis that revealed around 70 professional publications containing the same seven-word phrase,” that should have totally exonerated your son as it proved the phrase to be in common usage. Another situation that students need to be aware of is that professors have electronic grading programs available to them where they don’t even have to read papers. I had a professor give me a failing grade when I used Old English to write a paper on Hamlet. I had to fight with the guy to get him read my paper and give me the A that I deserved. One last thing is that students rarely catch their professors plagiarizing their writing, but it happens. It is nearly impossible for a student to protect themselves from their original ideas being ripped off by a derelict instructor!
I suspect that, more than anything, it is the Internet which has undermined the facade of expertise and knowledge gatekeeping.
Long before AI, I was using the Internet to self-teach what I was interested in.
It is thanks to the Internet that I was able to discover just how stupid most experts and professionals are.
You're sharper than I am Mara. It took the Covid narrative for me to realize "how stupid most experts and professionals are." In the spirit of what Tes wrote about; I am refusing to use footnotes after quoting you. By the way, this happened to me in college as well. I used the wrong type of footnoting and lost 3 letter grades on a paper. It doesn't make any sense for an administrative error to be more important than the content of the paper. I protested and lost. The professor was the head of the department. Should have seen it coming.
Good point Mara. This is where it really began...
When I see a headline that says "experts assert......"
I immediately refuse to read the article and presume the "experts" are "qualified" when they agreed to by "sell" the presumption or position of the publisher.
"Gaslighting" and it elder sibling "appeal to authority" are among the most common logical dilemmas.
Critical thinking asking "why is such and thus" so....? Demanding facts to satisfy each "why".