I thought this was a decent article though the examples are contrived (as so often happens in articles about education). There isn't (and never was) a Ms. Chen or a Priya or a Fitz or a magical sense that detects when feedback is created by AI. Sure, some things are 'cringe', but that can happen when a human writes (it would be like me trying to use the word 'rizz' meaningfully) and it reflects less than careful proofreading more than the sure and only sign of AI. The 'Ozempic' example here is to convey some sort of social disapproval of the use of drugs for weight loss, as though willful exercise and diet is somehow more socially acceptable. The argument here is that "admitting AI use carries the social risk of being seen as less capable, less creative, or less genuine. But we can move the needle by engaging young people directly. A well-designed nudge reframes disclosure from a moment of 'getting caught' into an act of ownership." Maybe. Maybe new norms will emerge - but note, they will emerge, not be 'constructed' through some process of collective meaning-making and choice.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
