Eli Alshanetsky advocates "a bottom-up approach to governing AI: rather than trying to stop progress at the level of capability development, we secure how AI is allowed to enter and operate within human practices." In other words, 'AI in the loop'. Also known sometimes as 'Human Autonomy Teaming'. I'm in agreement with this, but would like to focus on a completely separate point, based on this: "An essay can be rough around the edges and still count as real progress if the student grappled with an idea. When the work no longer reveals the student's thinking, the teacher's feedback has nowhere to land." I see the merit of this point, but have to ask: what counts as 'grappling with an idea' and why is it valuable? There's a leap here from 'show your work' to 'where you went wrong' to 'effective intervention'. We presumes the effectiveness and efficiency of the student essay as a diagnostic tool, but that presumption may well be wrong, especially given the affordances writing with AI may generate.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
