So, the better alternative to disclosure is to not tell the reader you're making them read machine-generated text, even if you didn't spend your time on it? I'm confused. You do imply that revelation is not always possible/necessary, and I fully agree with that. But the repeated hedging (yes, buts) in favor of AI shows bias.
I studied "second language writing" in grad school and have read extensively and written some on language politics; I disagree with your use of nonnative language users as a prop for advocating for more AI. All students deserve a stronger foundation in literacy skills, like we had the opportunity for. They deserve "both" AI-free reading, writing, and thinking skills AND AI-assisted ones. The bottom line is how capable they become as lifelong learners.
Two problems do not a solution make, but again and again, that is the rhetorical strategy you use for advocating for more AI use, in this post and in others. I am not against AI literacy, but I believe educators must start from a different set of premises than "debating" each other for and against AI. Future generations deserve to build on foundations of the past, not clean slates.
Yes all students deserve strong foundations in literacy skills, I am not arguing against that, but some people have greater barriers to writing than others. Maybe writing came easier to you than some people. I have nonnative speakers come up to me after almost every talk I do thanking me for this work (not just students, also experienced academics). So that you accuse me of using people as props is frankly insulting.
And I would question that time = care. I take A LOT of time on writing, because my ADHD causes working memory and executive dysfunction, but that extra time mostly equals frustration, shame, and pain. Where is the care for me? I would hope that someone would value the ideas I have rather than the measurable time I spent on something, simply because I suffered for it. I don't want people to suffer unnecessarily.
Also, some of the posts I wrote on this substack were AI-assisted, and some were not. I will never say which is which, that is for you to consider. But I will say that they take me the same amount of time to write, because AI doesn't just do it all for me, it just changes the process.
So, the better alternative to disclosure is to not tell the reader you're making them read machine-generated text, even if you didn't spend your time on it? I'm confused. You do imply that revelation is not always possible/necessary, and I fully agree with that. But the repeated hedging (yes, buts) in favor of AI shows bias.
I studied "second language writing" in grad school and have read extensively and written some on language politics; I disagree with your use of nonnative language users as a prop for advocating for more AI. All students deserve a stronger foundation in literacy skills, like we had the opportunity for. They deserve "both" AI-free reading, writing, and thinking skills AND AI-assisted ones. The bottom line is how capable they become as lifelong learners.
Two problems do not a solution make, but again and again, that is the rhetorical strategy you use for advocating for more AI use, in this post and in others. I am not against AI literacy, but I believe educators must start from a different set of premises than "debating" each other for and against AI. Future generations deserve to build on foundations of the past, not clean slates.
At the State University of New York system, we're taking the information literacy based approach to AI, as I describe in this post: https://shyamsharma.net/toward-an-ai-responsive-information-literacy-education/
I wanted to offer an honest critique of your post because I think taking sides isn't productive as an educational framework.
Yes all students deserve strong foundations in literacy skills, I am not arguing against that, but some people have greater barriers to writing than others. Maybe writing came easier to you than some people. I have nonnative speakers come up to me after almost every talk I do thanking me for this work (not just students, also experienced academics). So that you accuse me of using people as props is frankly insulting.
And I would question that time = care. I take A LOT of time on writing, because my ADHD causes working memory and executive dysfunction, but that extra time mostly equals frustration, shame, and pain. Where is the care for me? I would hope that someone would value the ideas I have rather than the measurable time I spent on something, simply because I suffered for it. I don't want people to suffer unnecessarily.
Also, some of the posts I wrote on this substack were AI-assisted, and some were not. I will never say which is which, that is for you to consider. But I will say that they take me the same amount of time to write, because AI doesn't just do it all for me, it just changes the process.