I think a majority of my friends are teachers and this could not be further opposite their sentiments. They feel strongly that it’s dishonest, nearly akin to plagiarism to use AI output in lesson plans. They don’t use it for grading or data analysis b/c of privacy concerns. They mostly complain that the kids are using it for homework, which makes it hard to grade both because it’s too uniform and because there’s no good faith effort going into the work which makes reading it unrewarding. And the consensus is that test scores are down b/c they’re offloading normal course work to AI. It’s basically the bane of their existence.
The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.
>The idea that it’s actually better for diversity feels like a wild reach, almost a canned talking point.
lol
She's got a photo of a new student from Cameroon pointing at a little laminated cartoon character that she hung on the bulletin board outside of her room.
It's a very effective way to make new students from far flung regions of the world feel seen.
How do you get to plagiarism from lesson plans? Or that it's 'dishonest' to use a tool to create them?
Genuinely not understanding the chain of reasoning there, unless you start from "Everything generated by AI is plagiarism by definition", which is objectively wrong and not based on how LLMs actually work.
Kids using it for homework is a different issue, and I would agree that's not good.
Lol ok tons of teachers use LLMs to make material. The plural of anecdote is not data, but in this case it's close.
> tons of teachers use LLMs to make material
How do you say this with such confidence and then, in the very next sentence, admit that all you have is anecdata which you don't even bother to cite?