Jane Rosenzweig
LightNews LightNews
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Jane Rosenzweig
@janerosenzweig.bsky.social
3.6K followers 1.2K following 310 posts
Writing in the age of AI stuff
Newsletter: writinghacks.substack.com
Also curate theimportantwork.substack.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Jane Rosenzweig @janerosenzweig.bsky.social · 4d
I have a short piece about what I've learned from teaching my AI course in this @chronicle.com forum on how AI is changing higher ed, along with some very interesting reflections from others, including a lovely piece on why writing matters by @zey.bsky.social . www.chronicle.com/article/how-...
Opinion Forum | How AI Is Changing Higher Education
The technology is reshaping every aspect of university life. Fifteen scholars weigh in on what happens next.
www.chronicle.com
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
I've been reading more about Ohio State's initiatives and saw this on their teaching and learning website. There are a lot of ways to help students at these early stages of the writing process but I'm not sure what problem is solved by producing "reams of raw content."
Potential Benefits It is helpful for educators to consider that generative AI: Provides learners a tool for generating rough drafts, outlines, and brainstorming notes. Generative AI applications like ChatGPT can assist students during the earliest stages of the writing process, auto-generating text for learners who are either stymied by writer’s block or stuck during the brainstorming process. When prompted, these systems can produce reams of raw content (of varying levels of quality and accuracy) that students can further evaluate, interrogate, and research. Using AI tools in this fashion can help students during the difficult preliminary stages of the composition process, creating a workable path toward their own inquiries and investigations (Gero, 2022; Krause, 2022; Weissman, 2023).
November 9, 2025 at 10:34 PM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
I've been reading more about Ohio State's initiatives and saw this on their teaching and learning website. There are a lot of ways to help students at these early stages of the writing process but I'm not sure what problem is solved by producing "reams of raw content."
Potential Benefits It is helpful for educators to consider that generative AI: Provides learners a tool for generating rough drafts, outlines, and brainstorming notes. Generative AI applications like ChatGPT can assist students during the earliest stages of the writing process, auto-generating text for learners who are either stymied by writer’s block or stuck during the brainstorming process. When prompted, these systems can produce reams of raw content (of varying levels of quality and accuracy) that students can further evaluate, interrogate, and research. Using AI tools in this fashion can help students during the difficult preliminary stages of the composition process, creating a workable path toward their own inquiries and investigations (Gero, 2022; Krause, 2022; Weissman, 2023).
November 9, 2025 at 10:34 PM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Also: another good argument for teaching everyone, beginning with kids, how LLMs work, how they're trained, what their output would look like without the existence of human art (or as it's often called these days, "training data.")
susannashore.bsky.social Susanna Shore, Author @susannashore.bsky.social · 7d
I spotted this on Mastodon and I find it horrible, not least for the speed with which this has happened.
A post on Mastodon by small cypress (@small_cypress@indieweb.social): As an art teacher I was worried AI would come up as an issue of "why should I learn how to draw when I can use AI instead." But the real issue is that my middle schoolers CONSTANTLY believe all art I show them is AI. Digital art. Photography. Oil paintings from the Western canon. "A human couldn't do that" Being convinced that humans can't make great art is kind of terrifying
November 9, 2025 at 5:26 PM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
I have a short piece about what I've learned from teaching my AI course in this @chronicle.com forum on how AI is changing higher ed, along with some very interesting reflections from others, including a lovely piece on why writing matters by @zey.bsky.social . www.chronicle.com/article/how-...
Opinion Forum | How AI Is Changing Higher Education
The technology is reshaping every aspect of university life. Fifteen scholars weigh in on what happens next.
www.chronicle.com
November 6, 2025 at 12:56 PM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
This essay is worth a read (by a college student in Ontario). macleans.ca/education/ai...
A common argument in favour of AI is that it helps protect our time and energy and increase efficiency. But to me, the idea of a world where we’re conditioned to trade hard work for convenience is scary. The whole point of university is to broaden our minds and push ourselves to do difficult things. What people once got lost in—late-night readings, the contemplation of century-old ideas, the labour of love that goes into writing an essay—has vanished almost overnight. Living your life outside of academic responsibilities is important, but with generative AI, the mantra “work smarter, not harder” has taken on a whole new life force. What was meant to be a place of higher learning has turned into a degree mill, fuelled by quick fixes, avoidance and instant reward, all using the same singular employee: ChatGPT.
November 7, 2025 at 12:17 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Here's some of what I've learned.
Teaching this course means I’ve spent hours reading, learning, and having sustained conversations with students about AI. What have I learned? I’ve learned that more students each year are coming to college having used AI, but a much smaller group arrive having learned anything about AI — and that’s a problem. I’ve learned that even as we’re hearing weekly that AI has killed the college essay, a writing class focused on the process of reading closely, listening, asking questions, considering evidence, and hashing out other points of view turns out to be a great place to work through the thorny issues presented by AI. And I’ve learned that while AI may be able to offer (often mediocre) writing feedback, it can’t help students articulate ideas that are not yet on the page, which is often the most meaningful feedback of all.
November 6, 2025 at 12:58 PM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
I have a short piece about what I've learned from teaching my AI course in this @chronicle.com forum on how AI is changing higher ed, along with some very interesting reflections from others, including a lovely piece on why writing matters by @zey.bsky.social . www.chronicle.com/article/how-...
Opinion Forum | How AI Is Changing Higher Education
The technology is reshaping every aspect of university life. Fifteen scholars weigh in on what happens next.
www.chronicle.com
November 6, 2025 at 12:56 PM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
In Perplexity ad, student brags about a paper Comet wrote. We can see the text, which is quite bad. The caricature of "homework" in these ads is interesting: at times selling an important learning tool, while the output suggests most assignments are pointless busy work and there is nothing to learn.
screenshot of text in a browser. It's a paper called "The History of Railroads in the united States" and it's very basic.
November 5, 2025 at 11:18 PM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
I'm talking about paraphrase in class this week and was curious to know how ChatGPT would fare creating a lesson similar to the one I'm actually using (that I made without AI). I asked for a passage from a real article and then a good paraphrase. It did give me a passage. But the rest? Not great. /1
Image of text that says: Source: Transparency and Accountability in AI Systems: Safeguarding Well‑being in the Age of Algorithmic Decision‑Making by Ben Chester Cheong, Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 2024. Frontiers Passage (excerpt): “The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) systems into various domains, such as healthcare … education … employment … and criminal justice, have raised pressing questions about their impact on individual and societal wellbeing. As AI algorithms become increasingly sophisticated and autonomous, their decision-making processes can become opaque, making it difficult for individuals to understand how these systems are shaping their lives. This lack of transparency, coupled with the potential for AI systems to perpetuate biases, cause unintended harm, and infringe upon human rights, has led to calls for greater accountability in AI governance.” Frontiers
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
The LLM paraphrase is more like a game of telephone. Here's a starting point, where might we end up? Anyway, I'll be using my original exercise, which was always the plan--but we'll also take a look at this experiment. /9
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Yes, we know about the relentless pivoting and this is just another example. But also: when I teach paraphrase what I'm really teaching is understanding. Can you explain the thing that you read because if you're joining the conversation, you need to understand the conversation? /8
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
And lo and behold, it agreed with me. /7
text from ChatGPT that says "You're absolutely right — and that’s an important nuance for academic writing and paraphrasing. ✅ Interpretation Check In the original passage: “…has led to calls for greater accountability in AI governance.” The author (Cheong) is reporting that calls for accountability exist — not necessarily making the call himself. The sentence is descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words: He is describing a phenomenon (others are calling for accountability), Not necessarily advocating a position personally. ⚠️ Why that matters for paraphrasing A paraphrase must not add intention or attribute an opinion to an author that isn't clearly stated. The earlier paraphrase changed the meaning by saying: “…the author says that stronger mechanisms of accountability must be built…” That wording implies that Cheong himself is demanding accountability, which is not what the original says. That subtle shift turns a descriptive claim into a prescriptive one, making it factually inaccurate. This is a form of incorrect paraphrasing, not just patchwriting."
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
not in this passage. I asked ChatGPT about this: /6
But in the original it doesn't seem like the author is calling for accountability in that passage--rather, the author seems to be reporting that calls have been made?
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
But in the paraphrase, this becomes "the author says that stronger mechanisms of accountability must be built into AI governance"--in other words, now the author is making the call rather than reporting that others have called for accountability. Does the author also call for this? Maybe. But /5
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
In fact, it caved immediately and offered me a "better" paraphrase, which was not, in fact, better. Because, as it turned out, all versions of the paraphrase had a problem beyond the "flow." /3
Image of text that says "The ideas are the same and the causal relationship (“because X → calls for accountability”) is kept in the same order. Even though the wording is different, the syntax and flow are too close. That makes it borderline patchwriting, not an ideal paraphrase for teaching avoidance of plagiarism. Here’s a better paraphrase, with a genuinely different structure: Cheong (2024) notes that when AI systems operate without transparency, their hidden decision-making can lead to biased or harmful outcomes. Because of these risks, he argues that society needs governance models that assign responsibility and protect human rights."
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
It gave me a paraphrase of the passage that it said was good. I said, "is that actually a good paraphrase" and it told me why it is good, apparently because the "flow" is different. When I pointed out that in fact this is pretty close to the original, ChatGPT agreed with me, as it does. /2
text that says: ✅ Good Paraphrase Example (for students to aim for) Cheong (2024) argues that as artificial-intelligence systems are rapidly adopted across sectors such as healthcare, education, employment and criminal justice, important concerns about individual and collective wellbeing emerge. He notes that when AI begins to make more autonomous choices and its processes are not transparent, it becomes difficult for affected individuals to see how decisions are made. Because these systems may also embed bias, inflict unintended harm and violate rights, the author says that stronger mechanisms of accountability must be built into AI governance. (Cheong, 2024) Compared to the original, the flow is different: Original: AI adoption → opacity → bias → accountability Paraphrase: AI adoption → opacity → risks → accountability Same ideas, but reordered and condensed.
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
I'm talking about paraphrase in class this week and was curious to know how ChatGPT would fare creating a lesson similar to the one I'm actually using (that I made without AI). I asked for a passage from a real article and then a good paraphrase. It did give me a passage. But the rest? Not great. /1
Image of text that says: Source: Transparency and Accountability in AI Systems: Safeguarding Well‑being in the Age of Algorithmic Decision‑Making by Ben Chester Cheong, Frontiers in Human Dynamics, 2024. Frontiers Passage (excerpt): “The rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) systems into various domains, such as healthcare … education … employment … and criminal justice, have raised pressing questions about their impact on individual and societal wellbeing. As AI algorithms become increasingly sophisticated and autonomous, their decision-making processes can become opaque, making it difficult for individuals to understand how these systems are shaping their lives. This lack of transparency, coupled with the potential for AI systems to perpetuate biases, cause unintended harm, and infringe upon human rights, has led to calls for greater accountability in AI governance.” Frontiers
November 3, 2025 at 2:55 AM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Reading a summary is not the same as reading an argument. All the steps that come before writing--coming up with ideas, figuring out how they fit together, drafting--that's the important work, not the stuff we outsource to make time for the important work. www.nytimes.com/2025/10/29/o...
Many people invoke a distinction between illicit uses of A.I. (such as the composition of entire drafts) and innocent auxiliary functions — outlining, for instance. But it is these seemingly benign functions that are the most pernicious for developing minds. Take the summary: Letting A.I. take over this rote task seems like a harmless shortcut. Sure, students who read only A.I. summaries will be subjected to predictable analysis and homogeneous prose, but they could save time and energy. In truth, the ability to determine what is being argued for and how is not dispensable. No aspect of cognitive understanding is perfunctory.
October 29, 2025 at 2:02 PM
Reposted by Jane Rosenzweig
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Well that clears things up.
Text that says "AI Overview Perplexity does not run ads on Facebook, but Facebook is a platofrm where Perplexity runs its own ads to promote its AI search engine. Perplexity is also"
October 28, 2025 at 11:40 PM
janerosenzweig.bsky.social
Well that clears things up.
Text that says "AI Overview Perplexity does not run ads on Facebook, but Facebook is a platofrm where Perplexity runs its own ads to promote its AI search engine. Perplexity is also"
October 28, 2025 at 11:40 PM