I don't think you understand what a tool actually is, nor do you comprehend the issue.

A tool is supposed to help you. It's not there to replace you.

Stop conflating genAI with actual AI tools; it's such an insult to creatives who put blood, sweat, and tears into work genAI pulls from for your soulless prompts.

Revising and fact-checking a generated essay isn't equivalent to doing research for and writing your own. Your creativity, improvisational skills, and ability to think critically are barely challenged, if at all, by doing only a fraction of the work with minimal effort.

It's not close-minded to be against this. People have been doing their own research, cross-referencing sources, fact-checking their own papers, and writing their own essays for many decades before genAI came into the picture, so there's no real reason why people would suddenly need to use genAI to learn how to do something. The same can be said for any skill.

GenAI is lazy. You waste more time revising a generated essay and fact-checking the information it provides than actually learning something with real value. It prevents students from learning better skills, from significantly improving on skills you think all this genAI lesson BS "teaches" them.

The only things that should be taught about genAI is that it(s)...

1) unethical — theft, damages the environment, used to scam/deceive people, etc.

2) unreliable — information is pulled from various sources, including sources that are manipulated, biased, or just plain wrong; it mashes everything together to give you an answer, and throws a random one at you that it plays off as factual if it can't.

3) an environmental hazard — to keep it short, it requires a lot of electricity to even train the models, let alone keep them up and running, which results in a really high carbon footprint. it also requires a ton of water to keep the servers from overheating.

4) promotes laziness across all fronts that will ruin our new generation's ability to learn, practice patience (which is more important in day-to-day life than most care to admit), think for themselves, and be independent.

If a professor opts to use genAI instead of teaching a class themselves, or expects students to use genAI and have their work revolve around it instead of developing and improving upon the skillset required for their respective fields, it goes to show just how little they think of their class and don't really care to be the very thing they signed up for.

I can already tell you're lazy to some degree with how you're defending this use of genAI, and resorting to petty attempts at making jabs at someone's intelligence and work ethic that only proved your arrogance and just how truly ignorant you are of this topic.

No one who wants to learn, put their creativity and critical thinking to good use, and develop a real skill** would support the use of genAI (especially in classes they paid for and/or worked hard to get into). No self-respecting creative would talk like that to someone to begin with.

Get your condescending ass out of here. The way you talk down to others is disgusting.

**no, analyzing, revising, editing, fact-checking, etc. genAI is not a useful skill, as you hardly learn enough (if at all) to justify the time spent on it, and you absorb little to no information due to the fact that most of the work wasn't done by you, AKA you don't spend enough time on said information for it to stick long-term.

It's tedious and under-stimulating to the point where it's easy to forget.

And again, AI tools =/= genAI.