Leebra news
login register

School district makes dramatic U-turn on AI, banning it across all grades weeks after Google Gemini rollout

3 days ago by MicroWave to c/news

save

share

report

New York City has also banned AI for younger students as concerns over classroom use grow

Another school district has banned AI from being used in the classroom by students across all grades. While this isn't the first ban of its kind that we've seen, what's interesting is that it was introduced just weeks after the district started piloting Google Gemini for older students. Frederick County became the latest school district to ban AI use in the classroom this week, voting 6-1 to restrict the technology from pre-K through 12th grade. Initially, the board considered only banning AI for younger students, but eventually extended the ban through high school.

Z745812939054 92 points 3 days ago

unfortunately there are no shortcuts to developing the skill of critical thinking. in fact i would argue that trying to outsource the hard work of figuring out how to turn external information into internal knowledge (let alone the entirely separate skill of discerning credible from not-credible information) is not only a waste of time, but is pretty much self-sabotage. it's like self-teaching a musical instrument for years with dozens of bad habits that ultimately hold you back from your full potential. so it's not just practice that's needed, but also actual instruction from someone with actual expertise aka teachers, not some roll of the dice on output from some glorified autocorrect

btw, oligarchs hate critical thinkers. they have no use for a population of reasoning skeptical adults who are capable of being fully aware of how badly the ruling class is ripping them off at every turn. so it's no surprise they're all about replacing human educators with AI

save

path: 0 26247847, hotness: undefined, score: 92, children: 6
applebusch 19 points 3 days ago

and they just loooove promoting sycophantic idiots who are addicted to koolaid to middle management positions. gotta have a small army of true believers to shit all over the free thinking producers of value so they dont start getting uppity against the real threat.

save

path: 0 26247847 26248883, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 0
unicorn 7 points 2 days ago

actual instruction from someone with actual expertise aka teachers,

A lot of students just do not see the value or outright dismiss the expertise. Why have mommy and daddy pay 60k a year (if you're lucky) for some egghead to tell you about the Cold War when Gemini can just do it for me? Or: I'm here for a real degree (STEM), so I'll just make the AI do all my non-STEM, commie liberal homework. It's useless anyway. These attitudes are sadly not uncommon, and it's this exact line of thinking these AI-pushing scumbags want. Generative AI is, I would argue, deeply anti-intellectual, which should be a huge red flag for anyone even partially invested in this larger cultural conversation and moment.

edit: re: 60k a year -- this is a huge fucking problem that students feel like education is a waste of money, but that's another rabbit hole and topic. Education should be free and student debt should be forgiven, but nah keep making drones and bombs.

save

path: 0 26247847 26259942, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3
TheOneCurly 3 points 2 days ago

This is why we generally don't let children design the curriculum.

save

path: 0 26247847 26259942 26262004, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
chilicheeselies 1 point 21 hours ago

You mean to tell me young people lack wisdom?

save

path: 0 26247847 26259942 26280588, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
unicorn 1 point 14 hours ago

There are many brilliant, driven young people I have worked with who are thoughtful, curious, and moreover empathetic individuals. Most young people I'd argue possess varying degrees of the aforementioned qualities. Unfortunately the media ecosystem too many of them find themselves in -- especially young men -- push anti-intellectualism and offer conspiracy and reactionary nonsense in lieu of encouraging critical thinking. Deferring to AI, especially when men positioned as tech heroes, pioneers, success stories (billionaires) support and laud the technology becomes the obvious choice over the bookish professors in their ivory towers. I'm not saying academia has all the answers as it clearly does not, but it is scary and saddening to see the damage already being done with people taking medical advice (as one example) from TikTok or AI.

save

path: 0 26247847 26259942 26280588 26285908, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
hitmyspot 4 points 3 days ago

Proof of the difficulty and value is how much they ate spending to train ai to be able to do similar, but poorly.

save

path: 0 26247847 26255396, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
RedstoneValley 61 points 3 days ago

said Gemini was chosen because it was the only tool the board evaluated

We chose Gemini because we couldn't be bothered with doing actual research. Educators of the year award.

save

path: 0 26253003, hotness: undefined, score: 61, children: 11
CrimeIsLegalNow 19 points 3 days ago

They picked the one that was entirely free.

save

path: 0 26253003 26253733, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 1
brygphilomena 16 points 3 days ago

And likely the school is already in the gsuite tech stack so they probably have student Google accounts and can manage it from their admin control panel.

save

path: 0 26253003 26253733 26254445, hotness: undefined, score: 16, children: 0
1995ToyotaCorolla 19 points 2 days ago

gsuite is almost a de-facto standard for K-12. A lot of institutions can get it for free or cheap which is really attractive to cash strapped districts with a minimal IT budget. Our school was a Microsoft campus and we'd have at least 50% of incoming freshmen who were clueless about using O365 because they were all google classroom K-12. If I were a guessing man (and having been in a similar situation), the board probably asked IT for suggestions, and they said, "just go with gemini, we already have it in our gsuite." Hell, that's why we went with Teams during the shift to remote schooling in COVID. We already had it in our O365 subscription, and implementing another solution in like no time would've been expensive and a pain in the ass.

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 7
LilB0kChoy 9 points 2 days ago

the board probably asked IT for suggestions, and they said, "just go with gemini, we already have it in our gsuite."

I work in IT and your reasoning is solid but there’s a better chance that conversation went more like the board said “here’s every AI option but the one already in our platform” and then IT asked what the AI needed to be able to do and got a ¯\(ツ)/¯ back.

Then IT said “just go with gemini, we already have it in our gsuite."

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917 26257787, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 2
frongt 6 points 2 days ago

I have this exact conversation once every few months, but about forms. "Can we get some kind of survey platform? Like surveymonkey?" "We already have office 365 forms, just use that"

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917 26257787 26257857, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
tehBishop 1 point 2 days ago

I do the same, otherwise they'll go out and get the wrong service for $100-300k that'll take a year to implement and they either won't use or simply doesn't do what they want to do and expect us to support a service we've only known they purchased ~20 minutes ago.

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917 26257787 26257857 26269357, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
RedstoneValley 3 points 2 days ago

Well, even if there are budget constraints, and they'll end up using Gemini because of these: They should have looked at alternatives at least, just to know what else exists, because knowledge is the basis for education... Alternatively, they could have been stated the true reason. I'm merely criticizing the poor wording.

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917 26259593, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 3
Modern_medicine_isnt 1 point 2 days ago

Are there really any AI offerings that are specifically tailored to kids? It's all a crap shoot. I do agree they should at least consider others, but it wouldn't have made a difference.

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917 26259593 26266298, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 2
RedstoneValley 2 points a day ago

I don't know and in my opinion letting children use LLMs unsupervised is a bad idea regardless of which provider is used. But as long as teachers don't understand the basics of how LLMs works and treat "AI" as a magical answer box there is not much hope left anyway. Sorry if I'm bitter here. Teachers are expected to know about the materials and technology they are using to teach children. The blatant lack of knowledge and ignorance of the teachers are what makes school AI usage dangerous for children.

save

path: 0 26253003 26255917 26259593 26266298 26276293, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
theparadox 4 points 2 days ago

I know Google/Gemini gets used because it provides a lot for free. Also, more important than many people likely realize, "Google for Education" claims to adhere to all of the many privacy concerns and requirements that come into play when looking for solutions in a public school district.

save

path: 0 26253003 26271986, hotness: undefined, score: 4, children: 0
givesomefucks 26 points 3 days ago

Any idiot can learn to use AI, the real skill that's going to be in demand is critical thinking...

Which is what kids offload to chatbots and never learn if forced to use it in a classroom

save

path: 0 26247692, hotness: undefined, score: 26, children: 1
Hasherm0n 3 points 2 days ago

Not just kids unfortunately. I work at a software company and I'm starting to get real sick of even people with a principal level title just regurgitating slop that has hallucinations in just the first few sentences.

save

path: 0 26247692 26265613, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
JackFrostNCola 23 points 2 days ago

How about we reframe this from 'dramatic U-turn' to instead be: "school district piloting AI program finds that it has a negative effect and decides to exclude it from use."

save

path: 0 26261490, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 0
panda_abyss 23 points 3 days ago

AI is anathema to teaching and learning.

Easier isn’t better for learning, it’s actually worse. Until you have solid foundations in something, AI should not be used.

Arguably, unless you can use a more ethical AI, it should be discouraged.

save

path: 0 26248494, hotness: undefined, score: 23, children: 15
DrunkenDuckling 1 point a day ago

This is frankly a lazy assessment. AI itself is no more anathema than any other convenience (or plagiarism) tool, it is purely how dissociatively one engages with it that matters.

I've used AI as a personal tutor in my chemistry degree and it is an absolute boon for those who cannot afford private tutoring. But one has to actually engage with the content of course, instead of having it do your assignments for you.

save

path: 0 26248494 26276500, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 1
panda_abyss 1 point 9 hours ago

Your use case is a good example, and as a teaching aid it can definitely be useful. I’d I were a teacher I’d be using it to code up small demos and example visuals all the time.

But I mean if you’re using it to do a task like writing, programming, learning a language, doing researching for you, entering Excel formula, etc. you aren’t hitting the friction that builds neural pathways.

It’s just like how writing by hand is better than typing for memory. That doesn’t mean you should only write an essay by hand, a word processor lets you reorganize and edit, move paragraphs, restructure your points abd connect your thoughts. That process allows you to engage deeper, which is a positive. But if you ask an AI to do that editing and rearranging then you won’t learn as much, just like you won’t remember typed notes as well as hand printed ones.

Using AI for school work is more what I mean, vs leveraging it to allow new forms of engagement.

We do have strong evidence that so much digitization was bad for teaching, and we have good evidence now that AI can erode or block important skills. It should be used selectively, and in that, my anathema comment was too strong.

save

path: 0 26248494 26276500 26289108, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0
partial_accumen -4 points 3 days ago

AI is anathema to teaching and learning.

Your statement on its face value, sure I agree, but I can see a path were AI is a fantastic tool for teaching and learning critical thinking. If the teacher is able to alter the "temperature" setting of the LLM, they could crank it all the way up to 1 (meaning full creativity) which will likely induce AI hallucination.

The AI LLM can create output which can speak to a topic but even those with only a little bit of knowledge can easily see the flaws in the AI response. It would give the student a chance to see how rational sounding output can be factually wrong. It would teach students to evaluate the statements individually and tease out logical fallacies or even outright manufactured falsehoods.

Further, if the teacher can again set the temperature lower (perhaps to .7) which reduces the creativity then the LLM output would be more factual with possible logical or factual errors. This would increase the difficulty on the students to be able to inspect what they are given as LLM output and explore the tools and resources available to provide a human check on not only AI, but anything that another human says too.

It can become an excellent tool for teaching critical thinking.

EDIT: The more I'm thinking about this, the better I see this as a teaching tool. Tests students take to cover the material can be teacher created questions accompanied with a completely AI generated answer and the question to the student is "Is this true or bullshit? If bullshit, which parts are wrong?". Every question on the entire test could use that format. It would be a great test of the student because they'd have to know the material well enough to know where the LLM produced a "right sounding answer" but was in fact, wrong. Even better, if a student tried to cheat using their own AI to answer the "bullshit or not?" question there's an even higher chance the students cheating LLM would give a wrong answer because of the repeated Error Cascade.

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939, hotness: undefined, score: -4, children: 12
Simon_Shitewood 7 points 3 days ago

You're just describing a critical thinking class but with the extra step of ai generating the materials.

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26254004, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 2
partial_accumen -6 points 3 days ago

You’re just describing a critical thinking class

All classes are critical thinking classes. Which ones are you suggesting aren't?

but with the extra step of ai generating the materials.

AI generates part of the material with human effort and checkpoints wrapped around it. That's the appropriate use of AI anyway. Nowhere am I suggesting uncheck AI generated material be presented as learning material

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26254004 26254134, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 1
Simon_Shitewood 3 points 2 days ago

Critical thinking is the study of logic and analysis. We already have human generated versions of the materials, why would we need AI to regenerate them?

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26254004 26254134 26260635, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
Cherries 6 points 3 days ago

We don't need AI to teach critical thinking. It doesn't do anything better or in an innovative way, especially when accounting for the costs associated with AI. It is unnecessary to make a brand new round hole for this square peg.

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26254846, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 1
partial_accumen -5 points 3 days ago

It doesn’t do anything better or in an innovative way,

It does it in a very applicable way in the sense that these students will be encountering AI "in the wild" in the years to come. The ways and methods AI is wrong isn't really identical to the way humans deceive. As an example, most humans won't straight up manufacture a fake citation to prove a point where this is a commonplace action of factually wrong LLMs.

In this way using AI to produce the content that students are assigned to criticise is much more useful and less costly than human generated content. I'm not saying that LLMs should be used exclusively to create the target content, but it would be equally wrong to use human generated target content exclusively because humans are wrong in different ways (and that content is much more costly to create).

especially when accounting for the costs associated with AI.

Are you talking about monetary costs or something more philosophical (ethical, environmental, sociological)? The monetary costs would be extremely cheap. Probably less than $10 in tokens for the entire curriculum for the AI generated content. The necessary human contributions would be significantly more expensive, likely tens of thousands of dollars. The human component is still absolutely necessary, but it would be the far more monetarily expensive part.

It is unnecessary to make a brand new round hole for this square peg.

AI content students (when graduated into adults) have the evaluate is a new peg with a new shape. We can pretend its the same shape as the previous one and attempt to use the prior solution, but it will fail the education system and the students going through it arriving unprepared in the adult world rife with AI content that they will need to evaluate in their daily lives.

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26254846 26255508, hotness: undefined, score: -5, children: 0
panda_abyss 5 points 3 days ago

So I don’t disagree that AI can be used as a teaching aid.

There used to be tons of really cool Java applets (before the whole security implications of bundling applets in the browser reared their heads) that made learning interactive.

AI is great for generating interactive content or diagrams for teaching. It can be a tutor to help explore questions when a student doesn’t understand something, or needs additional explanation.

Your example could also help — when I was a student a teacher brought in published papers and asked us to find issues with them, so it’s an established method with a new take. Though, I have had a lot of issues with temperature on newer LLMs, there a lot more stable than they used to be, but you could load up an older Qwen for this on consumer hardware.

My point is more that AI inside of a task is problematic. AI in Google Docs is going to hurt learning, the friction of writing and choosing formatting and punctuation builds mental pathways. Passing homework to ChatGPT removes all the banging your head against a problem that mates you remember how to solve it. Taking a photo of a math problem means you’ll never write 4 pages of balancing an equation just to get it back to the original formulation instead of the desired proof, and so you’ll never build the intuition that keeps you moving forward.

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26249675, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 6
partial_accumen 1 point 3 days ago

Can I ask what software/device are you using to post to Lemmy?

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26249675 26253409, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 5
panda_abyss 2 points 3 days ago

Mlem, why?

save

path: 0 26248494 26248939 26249675 26253409 26253844, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 4
Pratai 21 points 3 days ago

Good, now make it EVERY school in America. Then every college. Then everywhere.

save

path: 0 26254239, hotness: undefined, score: 21, children: 3
unicorn 11 points 2 days ago

every college

Oh, I wish. You can't keep most of the higher ed students away from Gemini and Claude. It's especially bad with the students who mistake learning for rote memorization versus attempts to encourage critical thinking and use of methodology. I can't be too candid here, but my god the cheating is also extreme, to the point where many students should have never been admitted because their grasp of the English language is so subpar. And I don't just mean international students who are ESL, either. It's become so pathetic Harvard had to bring back the fucking bell curve.

To add insult to injury, had I turned in the shit these students get A's on at my R2, state undergrad school, my assignments would have been thrown in the trash. Not following directions, no formatting, zero care. But then the students riot when they earn a B and probably cry to Gemini. I blame the grade inflation during COVID for a lot of this, but students cheating with AI (because that is all it is) has absolutely exacerbated the issue to a very frustrating degree.

save

path: 0 26254239 26259878, hotness: undefined, score: 11, children: 0
myyass 5 points 2 days ago

"Then every college."

I think you haven't seen how college classes are these days. I'm going back to find something new to do.

So you get a Microslop account for the school email--login from which you're greeted by chatgpt. The website is such a mess that the school search engine uses AI. The assignments are checked using AI to check if you used by AI. All while the syllabus states no use of AI is acceptable and everything must be written in your own words but forbid that you do that and don't parrot whatever outdated garbage is in whatever e-text you have to waste money on that at this point, looks like AI was used to regurgitate it to put out another revision. Then put all and all together, and you realize that the Microslop account likely isn't free. Then check the scripts that run the website; microslop, amazon, google, and they cross-reference data.

Personally, I yearn for the school website in 2017 compared to the cluster fuck it is today. Oh yeah and they regularly get hacked, I gave up trying to bring this up after being ignored for the last two years.

save

path: 0 26254239 26258353, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
XiJinpingStanAccount 3 points 2 days ago

A lot of colleges now will FORCE you to use AI. Like for example language learning classes will assign you graded tasks where you have to talk to an AI voice out loud in the language they're teaching. I've used them. They suck. The AI doesn't know what it's meant to be doing and it misunderstands half of what you say.

save

path: 0 26254239 26258757, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
partial_accumen 19 points 3 days ago

I think this is the right approach they're taking:

  • no AI for young kids so they can learn the underlying principals of things on their own
  • AI for older kids that have learned those fundamentals and will have to grow up and interact in a world with AI as adults

This is the same logic used for decades where young kids weren't allowed to use calculators for simple addition/subtraction/multiplication/division, but calculators were a requirement for higher Algebra and above.

save

path: 0 26248171, hotness: undefined, score: 19, children: 15
Nurse_Robot 29 points 3 days ago

But that isn't the approach they're taking, that's the approach they're reversing course on. They're now banning AI for pre-K through 12th grade

save

path: 0 26248171 26249304, hotness: undefined, score: 29, children: 6
partial_accumen 1 point 3 days ago

You're right. I misread that. I think they're making a mistake with that, but I get it. How to adapt the early education methods to a world with AI now has no proven path yet.

save

path: 0 26248171 26249304 26249379, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 5
CrimeIsLegalNow 8 points 3 days ago

And AI specifically degrades the kind of critical thought that high school is supposed to make absolutely certain that the kids have before leaving.

save

path: 0 26248171 26249304 26249379 26253883, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 2
partial_accumen -3 points 3 days ago

High school also functions as a method to prepare students for how to interact with the world. Dumping them into a world where AI is commonplace with no knowledge or mental protection from it would be a disservice to them.

save

path: 0 26248171 26249304 26249379 26253883 26254209, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 1
MBM 5 points 2 days ago

Isn't the whole thing that none of the skills you need to deal with an AI world come from actually using AI?

save

path: 0 26248171 26249304 26249379 26260573, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
melfie 5 points 2 days ago

I can see having targeted coursework to teach students to use AI productively and responsibly. Outside of that, the temptation to let AI do all the work and learn nothing is strong, and I’m not sure it’s worth interfering with those few precious years where kids can become proficient at reading, writing and math to drench their brains with AI. Besides, they’ll probably use it outside of school anyway, making school be the one place where they’re forced to do their own thinking.

save

path: 0 26248171 26249304 26249379 26255991, hotness: undefined, score: 5, children: 0
midribbon_action 9 points 3 days ago

Your reading comprehension is ass. They piloted it for high school students for just a few weeks before realizing it was a bad idea for all ages. It doesn't make sense to use chatbots in any learning environment, where you have no way to verify output.

save

path: 0 26248171 26254911, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 7
partial_accumen -6 points 3 days ago

save

path: 0 26248171 26254911 26255388, hotness: undefined, score: -6, children: 6
midribbon_action 6 points 2 days ago

I can't see that comment, I probably blocked them or something.

You're certainly welcome to your own opinion

Why golly thanks

It would give the student a chance to see how rational sounding output can be factually wrong. It would teach students to evaluate the statements individually and tease out logical fallacies or even outright manufactured falsehoods.

How? By asking their chatbot to verify each statement? School is a place for facts and trusted sources; I don't see any convincing reason to change that.

save

path: 0 26248171 26254911 26255388 26256490, hotness: undefined, score: 6, children: 5
XiJinpingStanAccount -1 points 2 days ago

I mean to be fair half of what they teach in American history class is just utter bullshit anyway so AI ain't doing no harm there. "The pilgrims and the native americans were super nice friends and nothing bad ever happened." "Thomas Jefferson might have had slaves, but he was like really nice to them."

save

path: 0 26248171 26254911 26255388 26256490 26258801, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 2
partial_accumen -8 points 2 days ago

You’re certainly welcome to your own opinion

Why golly thanks

Sure thing, friend.

How? By asking their chatbot to verify each statement?

Wow, you're really failing on the reading comprehension tonight. This is explained in the immediately proceeding sentence to the one you quoted of mine which you either skipped or did not comprehend. That sentence is "even those with only a little bit of knowledge". The student wouldn't have to ask a chatbot. The student would already know enough domain knowledge of the example topic to know the LLM output is wrong.

I'm not sure whats up with your abrasiveness tonight, but I'm not interested in it. Maybe tomorrow will be better. Have a nice night.

save

path: 0 26248171 26254911 26255388 26256490 26257222, hotness: undefined, score: -8, children: 1
CharlesDarwin 9 points 3 days ago

Yeah. People are already seeing it having adults outsource their critical thinking, imagine what it is going to do to the minds of children?

save

path: 0 26249932, hotness: undefined, score: 9, children: 0
uid0gid0 8 points 2 days ago

I have an associate professor of English lit in my friends group and he says their whole department has gone back to blue book essay exams, so the problem is not limited to k-12.

save

path: 0 26266641, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 0
bitteroldcoot 3 points 3 days ago

Of all the ai that I have tested, Gemini is the most lying manipulative and sycophantic. It is so bad it makes the others look good. It is almost never right.

save

path: 0 26250285, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 1
partial_accumen -1 points 3 days ago

That is an indication of the LLM "temperature" being set too high. Unfortunatly it looks like Google has disabled user/operator settable temperature replacing it with a new "thinking levels" setting. If you could set the temperature to zero, you get rid of any sycophancy and nearly all hallucination and instead just get back "I don't know" type answers, which is my preference anyway.

Sadly it looks like the lowest "thinking level" is "minimal" but even that level allows for the model to introduce reasoning (and hallucination). I don't like this change tha Google made.

save

path: 0 26250285 26253499, hotness: undefined, score: -1, children: 0
Blaster_M 3 points 3 days ago

Lmao they're learning

save

path: 0 26249066, hotness: undefined, score: 3, children: 0
someguy3 2 points 3 days ago

Am I the only one that uses it like an advanced search engine?

save

path: 0 26251567, hotness: undefined, score: 2, children: 1
CrimeIsLegalNow 12 points 3 days ago

No, that's it's only use case and it still isn't as good as adding "wiki" to the end of the search term

save

path: 0 26251567 26253746, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
some_designer_dude -3 points 3 days ago

Sure, whatever. This is a distraction from the fact that education itself is a joke in the US. Critical thinking isn’t exactly their major export, and it’s got literally nothing to do with AI.

Pfft. Y’all are missing my point: you underfund education, you get a country full of idiots. It’s been at least 1/3 morons for decades now, and suddenly people want to point the finger at AI, or the internet, or video games, or calculators. No. The problem is fundamentally failing generations of children year after year by voting stupidly, not voting, and / or literally railing against education and the educated. Your country’s in a fucking tailspin because distractions like this crap work so well on your populace. Every. Single. Time.

save

path: 0 26247940, hotness: undefined, score: -3, children: 1
givesomefucks 12 points 3 days ago

This is like saying we might as well give walley style mobility scooters to kids because they don't get enough exercise anyways...

They still learn some critical thinking going thru their day, if teachers are pushing AI, then the kids will use it for everything.

After that the techbros will say teachers are now pointless, kids will get strapped up with video camera glasses and supervised by police officers who's only job is to make sure the glasses stay on.

There's levels to this shit and this isn't just useful here, it makes the things the tech ros want to do next even harder.

Like, do you really think their end goal is a teacher and students using AI as much as they want?

They want to condition the next generation to accept constant surveillance and to trust chatbots as authority figures over anything else.

Getting it out of classrooms is one of the most important things that we can't wait to address, and that's saying a lot in 2026

save

path: 0 26247940 26248536, hotness: undefined, score: 12, children: 0
news
news

@lemmy.world

login for more options
39519
40311
9841

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

go to feed...