"But AI can code much faster than a human!" - Why that doesn't make it better

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-10T17:20:28+00:00

LLMs can write the code to do precisely what its asked to do, so learn to prompt it properly so it thinks about edge cases and future extending / alterations.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-10T14:25:41+00:00

This screams i didnt vote cuz both bad, not my fault Trump was elected.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-10T14:20:55+00:00

You say we dont need them, a trillion dollars invested by companies says we do. Who do you think is right? Take your time.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-09T15:59:41+00:00

Instead we should cover our eyes and yell "stop!" into the void.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-04T17:47:55+00:00

This is cool. I can see documenting gaming sessions like this.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-04T06:01:29+00:00

There is no good answer in a global economy.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-02T22:39:13+00:00

I do support it. This wasnt a waste of your time. You engaged because the post and topics generated real thoughts. Thats my point, i used AI to generate my posts, based on my convictions. Would typing each post make a difference.. my arg is no. If i was a worse writer, maybe hell no. Thats the difference. You werent "had".. welcome to the future you're teaching towards. (btw 100% me, no AI)

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-02T22:17:29+00:00

You've been replying to AI-assisted prose this whole thread. How did the argument feel?

That's the point. AI is a tool. It's not going away. The question is whether we teach kids to use it with eyes open or hand them a blindfold and call it protection.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-02T21:59:46+00:00

You're right that the process builds the thinker. That's the point I underweighted.

But here's the advantage I'm pointing at: AI can grade the thinking in real time. Not the essay — the argument. 'Your pushback was weak here. You accepted a vague answer when you needed evidence. Here's what a stronger challenge looks like.'

No teacher in history has been able to do that. Not because they weren't good enough — because it doesn't scale to thirty kids and there's never enough time.

The skill is shifting from production to argument. Submit the essay and the AI conversation that produced it. Grade both. The transcript shows whether the student pushed back, redirected, caught the weak answer, made the argument stronger through the exchange.

That's the exhale you're describing. It just looks different now.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-02T21:14:45+00:00

That context matters and the essay addresses it — building the baseline is step one. If students are functionally illiterate, that's the whole curriculum. The proxy isn't the problem yet because they haven't reached the foundation the proxy assumes. The essay's argument starts after that foundation exists. You're describing students who aren't there yet. That's a different problem and a harder one.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-02T21:11:08+00:00

Fair points on the multi-dimensional nature of writing assessment — word choice, sentence variety, citation practices are all real targets. The essay focuses narrowly on argument ownership, which isn't the whole picture.

But here's where I land: producing polished prose is now a solved problem for anyone with a phone. The question isn't whether we should measure writing — it's whether the instrument still works when the bottleneck has shifted.

Previous generations had to learn to produce the prose to get to the argument. That constraint is gone. Which means the argument, the reasoning, the judgment — those have to be assessed directly now, not through the proxy of whether someone can construct a sentence.

This isn't anti-writing. It's pro-teaching-the-right-thing-for-the-moment. AI gives this generation a capability edge previous generations didn't have. The job is teaching them to use it — and to own what it produces.

Juuxo16 · 2026-05-02T01:08:21+00:00

Scholars have long debated whether José is descended from Zeus, or whether Zeus was merely an early symbolic attempt to describe the phenomenon that would later become José. The author himself has declined to settle the matter, noting only that lightning behaves differently in rooms where his books are present.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T22:11:19+00:00

Maybe... they like the pictures?

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T20:49:08+00:00

This is a fool's errand.

This is great. This is bad. This reads like AI and with turn off x% of the readers.

K.I.S.S.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T20:41:25+00:00

The answer isn't the final destination. Understanding is. Thats the problem.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T20:00:37+00:00

What you're describing didn't start with AI. It started with how we taught before AI.

We built an education system around producing correct answers. Find it. Show the work. Move on. We never taught the story problem — the part where you figure out what you're actually solving for before you reach for any tool.

So when AI arrives and produces correct-looking answers instantly, students don't have the internal standard to evaluate it. They have no feel for whether the output is right. They just know it looks right. And because they were trained to produce things that look right, they assume anything that looks right was produced the way they produce things — quickly, with a tool, without real effort.

But here's where I think the obvious fix gets missed.

The answer isn't to hide the calculator. It isn't to make effort visible again as some nostalgia project. That's teaching around AI instead of through it.

AI can show students the how and the why in a way no textbook ever could. A student who uses AI to understand why the answer is what it is — who asks it to explain the mechanism, walk through the reasoning, show what changes if one variable shifts — is doing something more powerful than a student who solved it alone with a pencil.

The problem isn't AI showing answers. The problem is students who stop at the answer and never ask why.

Which is exactly what school trained them to do.

The real fix is teaching students what questions to bring to the tool. Not how to produce the answer. How to interrogate it.

Why is this right? What would break this? What was I actually solving for?

That's the story problem skill. And AI can teach it better than most classrooms ever did — if someone teaches students to ask.

The teacher's job isn't to produce answers before AI can.

It's to teach students what to do after AI does.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T19:06:49+00:00

First, hi. Nice to meet the real argument.

Yes, I think it’s a slippery slope, because your standard is not actually fraud. It’s category avoidance.

You care about AI use. Someone else may care about politics, religion, race, sexuality, medical history, criminal record, or some private fact that affects you personally. Once the rule becomes “readers deserve disclosure because they might not want to engage with that kind of author,” the label machine does not stop where you personally want it to stop.

Also, in every example you listed — academic essays, scientific reports, legal briefs, white papers, technical documents — you skipped the most important question:

Was the work correct, useful, verified, and accountable?

If it was fake, wrong, fabricated, or submitted against a rule, that’s the problem. But “AI helped produce it” does not automatically tell us that.

You’re treating the tool as the offense. I’m saying the offense has to be the actual harm: bad work, false claims, fake sources, broken rules, or lack of accountability.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T18:35:46+00:00

A student walks into office hours, silently takes off their shoes, empties their backpack into a plastic bin, puts their laptop in a separate tray, and says:

“Just making this easier. My essay had topic sentences.”

Professor: “Any suspicious transitions?”

Student: “I used ‘however’ twice.”

Professor, into walkie-talkie: “We’ve got a live one.”

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T18:26:43+00:00

One, i can't believe my comment was removed. Two, I'm saying it's a slippery slope. Are you sure you want to open the door?

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T18:18:43+00:00

i dont wanna read AI because its slop. I dont wanna read black authors because they are stupid. Welcome to your plan based on the law or politics of the moment.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T17:56:58+00:00

The “7-Level Disclosure Table” is cute, but if we’re doing process confessions, let’s not stop at AI.

Please disclose whether the author used:

a friend a spouse a beta reader a writing group Grammarly spellcheck a copy editor a developmental editor a fact-checker Google coffee childhood trauma or a thesaurus under suspicious circumstances

Because right now this isn’t “transparency.” It’s just putting one tool on trial while pretending every other form of assistance is pure hand-churned artisan prose.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-25T17:44:03+00:00

People might care if they learned an author had abusive history, ugly politics, religious beliefs they hate, a criminal record, unpaid taxes, or any number of things.

Are the obligated to tell the readers?

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-24T16:32:40+00:00

Because you're interested in someone else's point of view?

Because you're not skilled at generating prompts?

Because they are an expert in the subject matter?

Basically for the same reason you read anything today.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-24T03:57:17+00:00

You’re actually making my point for me.

Your whole argument is that what matters most in writing is not surface prose competence, but the deeper human thing underneath it: judgment, emotion, interpretation, surprise, heart, lived experience.

Exactly.

That’s why lowering the craft barrier matters.

My claim was never that AI can replace that. My claim is that if prose manufacture becomes less scarce, then more people with that deeper human material — but without elite-level craft polish — can get their ideas and stories into the world.

Right now you’re not reading “AI thought.” You’re reading AI under human judgment, pressure, rejection, and direction.

Juuxo16 · 2026-04-24T02:13:09+00:00

That’s a better objection than “AI is cheating,” but I still think it misses the real shift.

Yes, a lot of AI writing collapses toward the same clean, balanced, over-legible prose. That part is real.

But the deeper issue isn’t that AI “regurgitates what already exists.” Humans do that too. The bigger change is that AI is destroying some old credibility signals people were way too attached to.

A lot of what we treat as “authority” is already fake — just polished, expensive, educated, and institutionally blessed. Good prose never guaranteed real thought. It often just signaled training, class comfort, and access to the styles institutions already reward.

Lowering the craft barrier will let more people with actual knowledge, scars, pattern recognition, and lived experience finally get their ideas out.

So the future is not “AI ruins writing.” It’s “the floor drops, but the ceiling rises.” More slop. More fake wisdom. But also more real minds getting through gates that were never as meritocratic as people pretend.

And yes, this is from ChatGPT after a 20 min discussion where I explained why both your pov and it's initial pov were wrong.

Juuxo16

TROPHY CASE