The devil doesn't need any more advocates, but also: do you see the dehumanization in the move you made there?

We don't "sample", we interact. Language is fundamentally social and reducing people to their "output" is the basic problematic move of the AI boosters.

I hope you question how he characterizes language use. As someone with advanced degrees in the teaching and researching of writing practices who works with linguists, I know he is wrong. Noam Chomsky has made that argument as a respected specialist and should be listened to, at the very least.

Can confirm. The food pantry my folks run through a collaboration of churches in PA has been short for months, but the distribution last week was especially poor in what they could offer. The churches are trying to make up the difference, but that can only last so long.

Tell that to the people running our food banks (my folks help run one and hear that it is the same across their county) who are looking at huge deficits in what they are able to offer their fellow citizens. This administration is literally starving Americans.

2/ This is unsettling not just for all the reasons the research has been pointing out, but also because it affectively is just... strange. Slightly off kilter. And fundamentally soulless.

AAUP has a good statement that we are using as a foundation to do some pushback - www.aaup.org/reports-publ...

Yet is is being forced on some of us through course shells and other initiatives that we're given little recourse to fully opt out of. As a professor of writing studies who believes our research showing our own thoughts into words is key to learning and understanding, I'm very deeply concerned.

In short -- educators should not be carrying water for the AI bros. It's more than just a bad look.

>>