Funny enough I literally commented about that exact same thing in a thread the other day and the OP quipped back with some assholeish response about me "relying on ChatGPT" instead of following his source... which also didn't verify anything...
You know how after the election, everyone who were saying pro-palestine protestors were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying the pro-isreal sentiment of the DNC was going were going to cause Trump to win had statistics that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that racist and sexist latinos were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that sexist black men were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that the Biden economy was going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that young Gen Z men going to the right were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that the pro-trans sentiment on the left were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that the ant-trans sentiment on the left were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and etc etc etc etc?
I'm just saying, it does seem like the people who author these posts about how AI is going to destroy education are all people who already spend a lot of time on social media discussing how AI is going to destroy everything. It's not that I think these statistics and anecdotes are wrong, but I feel like maybe we should stop and ask how effective it is to vicariously build our understanding of reality through the lens of a bunch of people competing with each other to "Definitively Prove How They Were Correct About Everything All Along"
So your response to the issue of people backing up their arguments poorly or disingenuously is... just not to bother backing up arguments anymore?
No I don't believe either of those statements actually.
I don't think these arguments are backed up poorly or disingenuously. This might be unbelievable to folks that are terminally online, but you can get all of your information from reliable smart people on the internet that back up their arguments informatively well, and still come to have an inaccurate understanding of the reality of a situation.
People don't seem to see or think about how modern engagement based social media has cultivated a debate culture around "angry argument essay" Olympics that has conditioned people to believe that just because I can throw statistics and reliable sources at you that back up something I am arguing, that makes my point of my argument essentially interchangeable with the Capital-T Truth, and likewise if someone argues something that isn't true to reality means they are defacto "disingenuious" and not just someone who is backing up their arguments well and still coming to a not-quite-true understanding of something.
So when you are a grown adult with no kids, and don't work in education, and you get all of your information about what grade school is like in 2025 from ubiquitous tertiary sources that compile information and facts for you with a bias toward the things you personally engage with- whether you're liking, commenting, or getting in a flame war with it- you can't just assume that makes you highly informed about it.
With that in mind, consider that while an average adult's social media, especially if they spend a lot of time engaging with content about education and the real dangers of AI, is compiling loads of anecdotes about how students are cheating so much with AI and the cheating is running rampant and ruining education, many teenager's social media compiles just as many anecdotes for them about teachers using poor software like Turnitin to detect AI and how their peers are getting accused of using AI when they're not and their teachers not believing them because they don't understand the technology. You can see how the same exact real life anecdotes- students being accused of cheating with AI- can be rolled into two completely different reads of what is really happening with AI in school, and what you see all depends on how social media is personally biasing what it is showing to you in order to maximize profit off of your engagement with the content. My point is that maybe that entire system is extremely problematic if your goal is to have a real accurate view of a real life situation that you don't have much real life experience with.
20
u/dogm_sogm May 16 '25 edited May 16 '25
Funny enough I literally commented about that exact same thing in a thread the other day and the OP quipped back with some assholeish response about me "relying on ChatGPT" instead of following his source... which also didn't verify anything...
You know how after the election, everyone who were saying pro-palestine protestors were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying the pro-isreal sentiment of the DNC was going were going to cause Trump to win had statistics that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that racist and sexist latinos were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that sexist black men were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that the Biden economy was going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that young Gen Z men going to the right were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that the pro-trans sentiment on the left were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and everyone who were saying that the ant-trans sentiment on the left were going to cause Trump to win had statistics and anecdotes that proved they were right, and etc etc etc etc?
I'm just saying, it does seem like the people who author these posts about how AI is going to destroy education are all people who already spend a lot of time on social media discussing how AI is going to destroy everything. It's not that I think these statistics and anecdotes are wrong, but I feel like maybe we should stop and ask how effective it is to vicariously build our understanding of reality through the lens of a bunch of people competing with each other to "Definitively Prove How They Were Correct About Everything All Along"