Good? Fuck AI. Even calling it AI is disingenuous, it’s content scraping that regurgitates whatever you feed it according to algorithms written by a broccoli-haired tech-bro somewhere in the US. It’s not smart, it’s not aware, it’s not revolutionary. It’s a tool for the ultra-wealthy to cut out the working class, and teachers are already overworked and underpaid, they’re right to fight back. Algorithms should not be deciding which pupils are worth teaching.
Disclaimer that I don’t agree with what Kenny is saying here. I initially thought it was an April Fools, like, _of course, teachers aren’t going to be pushing AI in the classroom and feeding pupil data into AI_, but alas not.
I appreciate the use of AI when it comes to productivity, and perhaps it could be taught to students on how to use it responsibly? But I really do not think it should be becoming an integral part of the way things are taught or administered.
As they should. If that’s all teaching was we’d just give kids audio books.
Oh? Well, thank god for teachers
If I was a teacher, ifd tell kids to do homework on AI. Then id rip the results to shreds.
[Farquharson](https://archive.is/o/zoAvO/https://www.thetimes.com/profile/kenny-farquharson) farts again. What an absolute zoomer this salad dodger is. No thoughts about how damaging AI could be. He just swallows whatever he is telt and expects everyone to just accept his pronouncements. Scotland’s most oblivious useful idiot. He’ll say anything for a pie.
Good, I’ve been one of these teachers – well, in university, – advising students to **not** use generative tech under any circumstance.
also anything that ends with “… must take on the unions” is bullshit. God forbid workers rights are a thing along with the ability to acquire and build on skills.
Could replace him with AI and it’d probably be indistinguishable
This man is a fool. He believes whatever the techbros tell him
I’ll bet all his savings are in bitcoin too.
Whilst LLM’s certainly have their place, I’m not convinced they’re of any use in education beyond a PhD level degree where the person already knows what they’re doing.
Before that point it’s detrimental and benefits wealthy people more who can just purchase all the journals to scrape off of.
Generative AI can’t do what he is claiming it can do. Perhaps some sort of algorithmic system could. But it would only operate as well as the data it’s fed – and in most cases I don’t see how it could be anything other than “teaching to the test”. The idea that a personalised learning plan could be generated by this technology that’s somehow better than a teacher doing it is fanciful in the extreme.
There appears to be a lot of “OMG finally we are living in the future!” around generative AI. Where people seem to turn off their critical thinking and just believe the technology can do amazing stuff it just can’t. Don’t get me wrong LLM systems have some potentially great applications – in early diagnosis from cell samples by recognising pre-cancerous cells etc. BUT a lot of those applications are based on training AI to do what people can do but don’t have capacity to do. LLMs work best when they can be trained on lots of specific data that has a narrow range of outcomes/results. Generalised or generative AI just produces things that look like things. I mean Generative AI could generate a “personalised learning plan” but it wouldn’t actually be a personalised learning plan. It would just be something that convincingly looks like one.
Honestly I have no problem with AI being used as much as people want, I’m no luddite, as long as there are generalised exams that test aptitude and you can’t use tech in them. Indeed I actually wonder why universities don’t just have generic entrance exams rather than relying on schools with Highers/A levels etc where some kids don’t have a good time and don’t flourish.
Based on my own experiences here, but I think it’s absurd that if you come from a working class background and don’t have middle class helicopter parents you can’t know which subjects to pick at school, which courses to look into studying, no help or support from parents or schools, just left to get on with it. No extra tuition or help or study plan/routine/space from parents either, nor teachers who generally had their favourite pupils, those from middle class backgrounds.
And knowing some of the actual professional salaried middle class over the years, Ive been a bit unimpressed by their level of intellect, a lot of them aren’t actually that smart and got through life based on their sharp elbowed parents and greater financial security.
12 comments
Good? Fuck AI. Even calling it AI is disingenuous, it’s content scraping that regurgitates whatever you feed it according to algorithms written by a broccoli-haired tech-bro somewhere in the US. It’s not smart, it’s not aware, it’s not revolutionary. It’s a tool for the ultra-wealthy to cut out the working class, and teachers are already overworked and underpaid, they’re right to fight back. Algorithms should not be deciding which pupils are worth teaching.
Disclaimer that I don’t agree with what Kenny is saying here. I initially thought it was an April Fools, like, _of course, teachers aren’t going to be pushing AI in the classroom and feeding pupil data into AI_, but alas not.
I appreciate the use of AI when it comes to productivity, and perhaps it could be taught to students on how to use it responsibly? But I really do not think it should be becoming an integral part of the way things are taught or administered.
As they should. If that’s all teaching was we’d just give kids audio books.
Oh? Well, thank god for teachers
If I was a teacher, ifd tell kids to do homework on AI. Then id rip the results to shreds.
[Farquharson](https://archive.is/o/zoAvO/https://www.thetimes.com/profile/kenny-farquharson) farts again. What an absolute zoomer this salad dodger is. No thoughts about how damaging AI could be. He just swallows whatever he is telt and expects everyone to just accept his pronouncements. Scotland’s most oblivious useful idiot. He’ll say anything for a pie.
Good, I’ve been one of these teachers – well, in university, – advising students to **not** use generative tech under any circumstance.
also anything that ends with “… must take on the unions” is bullshit. God forbid workers rights are a thing along with the ability to acquire and build on skills.
Could replace him with AI and it’d probably be indistinguishable
This man is a fool. He believes whatever the techbros tell him
I’ll bet all his savings are in bitcoin too.
Whilst LLM’s certainly have their place, I’m not convinced they’re of any use in education beyond a PhD level degree where the person already knows what they’re doing.
Before that point it’s detrimental and benefits wealthy people more who can just purchase all the journals to scrape off of.
Generative AI can’t do what he is claiming it can do. Perhaps some sort of algorithmic system could. But it would only operate as well as the data it’s fed – and in most cases I don’t see how it could be anything other than “teaching to the test”. The idea that a personalised learning plan could be generated by this technology that’s somehow better than a teacher doing it is fanciful in the extreme.
There appears to be a lot of “OMG finally we are living in the future!” around generative AI. Where people seem to turn off their critical thinking and just believe the technology can do amazing stuff it just can’t. Don’t get me wrong LLM systems have some potentially great applications – in early diagnosis from cell samples by recognising pre-cancerous cells etc. BUT a lot of those applications are based on training AI to do what people can do but don’t have capacity to do. LLMs work best when they can be trained on lots of specific data that has a narrow range of outcomes/results. Generalised or generative AI just produces things that look like things. I mean Generative AI could generate a “personalised learning plan” but it wouldn’t actually be a personalised learning plan. It would just be something that convincingly looks like one.
Honestly I have no problem with AI being used as much as people want, I’m no luddite, as long as there are generalised exams that test aptitude and you can’t use tech in them. Indeed I actually wonder why universities don’t just have generic entrance exams rather than relying on schools with Highers/A levels etc where some kids don’t have a good time and don’t flourish.
Based on my own experiences here, but I think it’s absurd that if you come from a working class background and don’t have middle class helicopter parents you can’t know which subjects to pick at school, which courses to look into studying, no help or support from parents or schools, just left to get on with it. No extra tuition or help or study plan/routine/space from parents either, nor teachers who generally had their favourite pupils, those from middle class backgrounds.
And knowing some of the actual professional salaried middle class over the years, Ive been a bit unimpressed by their level of intellect, a lot of them aren’t actually that smart and got through life based on their sharp elbowed parents and greater financial security.
Comments are closed.