But they're not a thought partner. They don't think. What exactly is this tool doing for you? What do you mean when you say it's 'accelerating' your thoughts? How are you using the language it produces?
Disagree with your first point. Agree with your second. They don’t think, but their computational work allows them to reasonably act in that role, ask good questions, challenge assumptions, etc.
Then it is not a thought 'partner', because you are the only one thinking. It is a tool that is spitting out statistically probable language from which you can construct meaning.
You're using software to provide you with feedback on something you are doing? What types of work are you getting feedback on? What types of feedback is it giving you?
But LLMs do a terrible job at all these things, because none of that is what they are designed to do. Why would you use it to do this, when it has no concept of your students and even a novice teacher can create better resources?
My point is that the ed tech being pushed on teachers is part of a project to deprofessionalize teaching, reduce students to data sets, using it as an excuse to decrease teacher's decision-making power and increase teacher workload. The AI part exacerbates this with the promise of simulating humans.
Comments