Technolandy

Day 46 (of 2025/26) #tEChursdAI ai leading us into an unwanted Time Machine…?

I hate that AI is returning us to the 17th century…

Thanks @WSJ and @MJ_Koch for encouraging @WSJopinion.

⸻

Spoiler (aka thesis statement <— trust me, this is sarcasticly funny): I hate that Mary Julia Koch’s OpEd on A New York School Finds a Way Around AI (https://apple.news/Aydkzg1rCSB21DPk–skDaA) confirms that we are further embedding a mindset that peak education was reached in the mid-20th century — with 40 students facing one wall and receiving direct instruction as if they were all the same neurological profile, with the same schema and strengths to receive the one-shot of data, synthesize it, and reproduce it on a quiz or test a few days later.

And then never address it again.

Or even worse: reinforce that there is only one format to share out knowledge with… the 17th century’s greatest contribution to society (I wish there was a universal font for sarcasm — comic sans could be good, but it’s so good for dyslexic readers…)

The essay – maybe it should be capitalized and italicized to acknowledge that its sentence structure and format (ideally five paragraphs each with 5 sentences for easier marking) is ‘the’ way for people to show they have knowledge! The Essay. Yep that looks more dramatic… I wish there was an option to double underline it in the word processor (oh yeah, maybe that’s why Koch wants a return to pencil and paper (the original way that mean messages were published and bullying occurred.. odd that we didn’t ban those tools in school when we could’ve – cuz beyond the mean elements they enabled, they were also great at distracting youth from learning – stupid doodles and notes (DMs ain’t new)… so that we can double underline: The Essay – the single underline will have to do…

Come on… the essay cannot be considered the universally best way to share what you know. Beyond academia (and even within it) nobody reads essays anymore – prose has expanded (and ought to continue to expand based on emerging dreams and found documents ~ the regular way historically that new literature is shared to the masses, cuz like Ford and Jobs identified: if we ask they audience what they want, it’s more of the same!)

It was fine when text-based media was the only way to mass-produce and distribute information (albeit taking weeks or months for a discussion over thousands of kilometres to take place). But it is such a limited methodology to assess knowledge when it brings in so many other limitations — spelling, grammar, neatness, and so on.

Claiming that 90% of students’ work included AI for academic purposes is like being shocked that they copied information out of the library as well! Copying for youth becomes research later..

I’m sorry, but if Clive Liew (in the WSJ article) is saying, “in-person essays prepare students for what they can expect from a selective arts and humanities prep school,” I’d suggest applying to a different school. My daughters wen to universities and while they had to do some writings (I’ll still say that exploring the medium has value) their projects were by far more important – one in fine arts, the other in high pressure engineering…

Claiming the Beacon School will prepare his daughter for college better than AI (assuming “without using AI” in this context) is like preparing for a career in optometry by studying up on scalpels and blades rather than laser technology. You can do it that way, but there are much better, more effective tools to be safer on the audience..

Shifting the focus to assuming that “no help is better” further stretches the ability gap — with some families having more access to at-home resources (tutors, siblings, even parents who can do assignments) than those who are more independent, or juggling extra jobs to help the family. But again, that is what those in power try to do best… keep the access limited.

This must terrify the ruling class — this paradigm shift goes beyond even the dangers the elite faced when society became literate. When everyone has access to supports, the only differentiation left will be the legacy-based entrance requirements that keep the proletariat and plebeians of society away from the 1%.

And don’t tell me those jobs are merit-based. As it always has been… it’s about family relationships. Especially about familial lineage…

Even worse (IMO), Koch writes:

“The shift to handwritten essays could compel a generation that grew up texting and typing to improve at writing in print or, better yet, cursive. An old-fashioned practice might be the best solution to a cutting-edge problem.” If we want to go back in time, let’s give up on the fad that is reading text printed on paper and return to a story-telling focused culture and society! Tech can now enhance that methodology and enable people to be seen and heard in real time… not even needing to wait for an envelope with correspondence. Then we don’t have to worry about AI or Libraries enabling students to cheat AND we can really enforce the value on what people memorize and regurgitate, if … we feel that is the most valuable element of obtaining knowledge…

Ms. Koch may be an associate editor, but she’s letting her elitist bias show very clearly in this op/ed.

If she put her money where her mouth was and wrote this in longscript and had it printed in the WSJ as a graphic, maybe I’d be more convinced. But this isn’t just a move back a few decades — it’s going back centuries to emulate Jonathan Swift. (And we won’t do it better, either.)

Sigh.

Communication will find a way.

It will continue to evolve and improve, despite the tyrants trying to limit new genres and styles.

Ban the text, and other tools (re)emerge: https://apple.news/AZS75UentRP6lOkHHkd47CA

Whether on Google, Microsoft, Apple, or even via calculators — there are so many ways to collaborate, and that means communicate. Much as we once passed coded notes (quite the distraction — I’m still surprised paper and pencils aren’t banned in schools 🙃), the desire to connect is powerful… as in real life, as so in virtual spaces (when the connections are not found in person…)

But wait, there’s more…

https://apple.news/AZIBX3Yk1TsmsVhQqdps89g

If you’re still worried about personal screens, you’re still thinking too small. I encourage a mindset shift:

Read Brave New World as a utopian fantasy — where people are unchained and unburdened by everyday stresses and worries.

Read the supposed “bio-organic editing” as metaphor rather than literal… because collaboration is coming. In fact, it’s already here.

In the meantime, I had a fun discussion about how some educators are looking to track keystrokes (Google) or version history (Microsoft). With parental permission, of course.

But wow — this opens a bigger can of worms, IMO.

Are they tracking which keys are used, in which order?

Are they looking for keywords?

What about those of us who use more elegant word processors and copy/paste for compliance?

Maybe a better question/wonder is:

SO WHAT IF KIDS ARE USING AI?

Maybe this is what we need to talk about:

• WHY are they using AI?

• WHEN is the best time to rely on it (as a completer vs collaborator)? When is it not…
* WHAT the use can be: collaboration is a multi-layered mess when it’s working right

• HOW are they using it (to edit, to get unstuck, to prompt, to judge – to complete a task that has no relevance to “learning” other than to complete for a score – any difference than sharing chapter questions around as we did back in the day)?

As Douglas Adams reminded us — looking for answers only works when you’re asking the right questions.

So instead of wondering how can we stop cheating? (at least in its new form — handwritten plagiarism is still being conveniently overlooked, which = encouraged…), maybe we ask better ones.

Maybe the real questions — the key job/skill of the future, IMO is about getting questions right, not answers — are:

• Why are they (we) turning to AI?

• When (and how) does it best support authentic learning?

• How (and why) can it be a collaborator, not just a completer?