1. Of all the potential harms, academics’ consistent fixation on student “plagiarism” as the main worry is weird. 2. People keep confusing “faster” with “better.” Good writing, thinking, drafting, and revising are not necessarily things that are improved by being done quickly.
An effect of the new technology ‘doesn’t have to be the removal’ of teachers from the classroom
i just had a funny thought about how in professional sports you're expected to use steroids ultimately at the expense of your own lifespan (but hide this fact of course) because you wouldn't rate if you didn't, and that's because the proximate demands are so intense
Add to "better" in item 2: "more productive" and "more efficient" because your boss (or theirs) will be using both terms in official settings.
Me, laughing in "extensive research has shown that inferior quality of assignments has been the single greatest predictor of the likelihood of student plagiarism."
I assume the FT piece quotes like three academics, probably not in the humanities. The headline should begin “Three Academics Express….”
Hmmm... A lot of baffling assumptions in this article. like that sociology professor is the job most valuable to ai. I'm not sure I want a program trained on Reddit to teach people about humanity
Also weird how the three people who get cited as the views of “academics” are… two business school and a computer science professor.
