If you look up the most visited websites (obviously difficulty to gage, but this seems like a fair estimate), note the one that is a foundation (nonprofit). (Spoiler: it's wikipedia!) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

One important issue seems to be that students have a distrust of Wikipedia (often stemming from their professors/teachers), despite changes in its usefulness over the years. Here's an article I love to share: www.wired.com/story/wikipe...

Yes, and it made the article even more confusing to read!

That is, the sense of satisfaction that comes from generating certain kinds of writing:

"I want to understand. And when others understand in the same sense as I understood, then it gives me satisfaction, like a sense of being at home [heimat]."

Hannah Arendt said something related to this point, in a 1964 interview with Günter Gaus. It's a quotation that has been taped to my wall, just beside my desk, for a few years now. It's part of the loss behind the question posed in the article headline--a loss nobody seems to want to acknowledge.

It is also, often, a pleasure to write, in and of itself, and then to feel like you have made into some shape the thing that was, before that, inside of you, without form.

I am uncertain about many things, but whether or not writing will survive A.I. is something I have no doubt about. Because thinking will survive A.I. and writing is, among other things, a way of thinking.

Maybe many recommendation letters are stale (are they closely read?; are they doing what we think they ought to be doing?; have they become possibly somewhat pointless?), and maybe there are new ways to think through both the reasoning behind them, the why, and alternatives to traditional methods.

If, as I have now heard anecdotally many times over, A.I. can generate a recommendation letter that rivals what professors typically write, then maybe the recommendation letter isn't doing the work that it once did.

and how to find ways for students to develop and expose what they learn without overemphasizing that moment of "handing in" a final product.

The same question--What kind of writing will survive A.I.?--might be applied to other areas as well.

Many people have been experimenting, for years, with new ways of thinking through how to teach critical thinking in the classroom--through stages, through reading, writing, and speaking, etc.--

One example: is the traditional seminar paper useful for student learning? The traditional paper emphasizes product over process, and I think many of us--especially those with backgrounds in writing pedagogy--have long resisted it for this reason.

If a bot can create something presumably equal to the human version of it, is that maybe because the human version of it is vapid or stale? Now seems like great time to build on the work of those--educators and others--who have been asking these questions for a long time.