But AI cannot comprehend. AI cannot analyze. And you shouldn’t trust it to. Think for yourself!

LLMs can help with communicating your thoughts, but you need to have the thoughts first.

But that’s only true because students don’t know what they are supposed to be learning.

There isn’t an easy way out of this. Our entire system is built on the premise that tests and papers are good enough.

And so they use AI to produce something that looks like comprehension and analysis but isn’t. Because we don’t tell them that the real goal is engagement with the content. Our teach to the test/all that matters is the gpa education culture means that it is logical to use AI.

But that’s hard to assess directly. So instead, we focus on writing assignments and such where students are supposed to demonstrate comprehension and analysis. But the requirements for those assignments aren’t transparent. We don’t tell students why they need 10 pages or 8 sources.

PEN counts books that are restricted in access but remain in the library as banned, OIF does not. So a book in a school library that goes from accessible to all students to being limited to high schoolers is considered a ban by PEN but not by ALA.

PEN counts things very differently. The differences in count are because they use different methodologies, not because of staffing differences. They aren't undercounts, they just count slightly different but overlapping things.

Definitely is, but they aren’t a juggernaut.

To give a report from the front, this is both egregious and meaningless. They shouldn’t be here, but the idea that they are an overwhelming force is misleading. They want this to seem like a show of strength, but it’s not. They are ultimately weak and we shouldn’t treat them otherwise.

Not quite writing, but a recent video by Wendover productions brought up some interesting issues with AI data centers and power infrastructure.

INWO is a gateway drug to HST.

Instead, we need to recognize that a civilization is for the people who are part of it and that the benefits of those shifts belong to everyone.
GenAI shouldn't be used to take prosperity from the displaced, but be part of a conscious transformation of the normal. A normal that is about people.

Right now, we're facing another big shift in the normal with the presumed ubiquity of GenAI.
On the one hand, this is a threat to the normal, with the destruction of jobs and the concentration of wealth.
We need to meet this by challenging normal, stop pretending that we can do the 50's again.

A lot of these errors came to a head in the 1980s when the Reagan administration decided that the growth of the mid century was some sort of natural force that didn't need to be actively sustained and so cut anything that had been built to support actual growth and change. It went...poorly.

The idea that it's normal for people to spread out into more and more new areas is wrong. We should be creating sustainable forms of density with more shared transportation, more accessible services, more local opportunities.