Breaking the techno-ties that bind
Like the use of IT tools for marketed as an artificial intelligence, some educators and even entire institutions adopt new technology. For example, the Ohio State University has announced a Audacious AI mastery initiative to redefine learning and innovation.
But some educators postpone “inevitable” technology, and open letters become a resistance tool. Literary Hub has published a letter authors addressed to publishers. In the Netherlands, more than 900 educators have signed a letter entitled “Stop the non -critical adoption of AI technologies in the academic world.“”
The unhindered introduction of AI technology leads to a ticket to the spirit of the EU Act. It undermines our basic teaching values and the principles of scientific integrity. It prevents us from maintaining our standards of independence and transparency. And most concerning, the use of AI has been demonstrated to interfere with learning and critical hard-of-hard.
Earlier in July, another open letter was launched “Educators who refuse the call to adopt Genai in education.Melanie Dusseau (University of Findlay) and Miriam Reynoldson (RMIT University) have obtained the petition in service, and to date, more than 700 educators have signed in just two weeks.
Dusseau has already talked about AI in education With an article at ED inside Last November, arguing that resistance is not futile.
If you are tired of the inevitability drum which insists that English teachers adopt AI in our teaching practices, I am here to tell you that you are allowed to oppose. Using an understanding of human writing as a means of allowing profit -based technological companies to dismantle the imaginative practice of human writing is odious and contrary to ethics. Editorial teachers have both the agency and academic freedom to examine the origins of AI generation training and to conclude: there is no way to ethically teach IA skills.
The open letter Declares that “current Genai technologies represent unacceptable legal, ethical and environmental damage”, that it is “a threat to the learning and well-being of students” and that it is “massively intended to automate and replace human effort”.
The open letter Includes a series of promises of promises, including a refusal to use AI to design or assess the courses, nor include “the literacy of AI” in the design of the courses. They also undertake to withstand media threshing, in particular that coming from sellers who are net educators (an education problem which prior to the invention of the computer).
Many writers praise the “inevitability” of AI in education {La London School of Science and Technology has published an entire article on “The futility of resisting AI in education»).
But there are also voices causing any rush towards the adoption of the AI. Scott Latham, Ph.D., professor of strategy at the Manning School of Business at the University of Massachusetts, wrote a “service note to teachers” to ED inside Last year, “AI am not your friend ” And writing educator John Warner sets up a Defense of humanity in writing and writing instruction Is his new book, More than words.
Dusseau said by e-mail that she and Reynoldson “wanted to do something that focused on autonomy and academic freedom in the face of the many ethical concerns surrounding AI generator technology”. What they created was a sign of international resistance to Genai.
At Learnopoly, Finn has championed a mission to deliver unbiased, in-depth reviews of online courses that empower learners to make well-informed decisions. With over a decade of experience in financial services, he has honed his expertise in strategic partnerships and business development, cultivating both a sharp analytical perspective and a collaborative spirit. A lifelong learner, Finn’s commitment to creating a trusted guide for online education was ignited by a frustrating encounter with biased course reviews.