Agreed, but that is exactly the point. The mods believe that AI slop is the desired top content in their sub. It exemplifies what is wrong with AI-generated content, as it places people's comments secondary to the AI's summary.
I have talked to teachers recently about their options when choosing classroom curriculum and tools. None of them have said a word about AI. Most of them have complained of lack of autonomy because the tools and curriculum are decided at the district level, and the teachers have to use whatever the district sets up.
The reason I started those conversations was specifically around when children are learning critical thinking skills. When we broke down exactly what types of exercises teach those skills, it surprised me to find that it starts way earlier than it used to. It is now a late elementary school topic, when it used to be high school.
That doesn't mean that slop isn't creeping into the classroom - it is. But what to do about it is a completely different conversation when it is pushed down from on top vs. assuming teachers are choosing it.
Depends on what we mean by critical thinking, as I said it is an abused term. Some just use it as a substitute to mean "thinking for yourself" when that is not something taught in a lesson but either becomes a habit or doesn't. But even then we all use arguments from authority and present it as our own because you are not realistically going to think about everything from first principles all the time.
I agree that districts do have a lot of pressure on teachers to keep pushing up test scores which leads them to being gamed either by teachers or children no matter the tools available: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law
Nifty idea, but the premise seems flawed. This won't help people read, it will help people avoid reading by focusing on which words to skim. It also seems like it would have a problem detecting sarcasm.
The thing about the icons next to each phrase is that they are useless. Forget how they look, instead ask why they are there? Icons in UX design give a visual representation of what a button does, to help people understand the interaction with the UI. Well, these are posters. There are no buttons. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why an icon exists in the first place. (And yes, this is true for many of the places where AI throws in icons.)
That is why, even if the look of a poster is OK, they are failures. Because they forget that the reason these advertising posters exist is to communicate something that is going on. A nice look to them is a bonus, not the core purpose. So claiming that AI isn't doing a horrible job is because the author is misunderstanding what the job is in the first place.
Doesn't seem to work. I tried a few terms that I know have results when using the existing search at: https://hn.algolia.com/, and it returned nothing.
> If coding is a nearly solved problem, if AI is making it so easy to make anything,
If you are open to the idea that those premises are incorrect, you have your answer. Coding is helped, not solved. AI makes it easy to prototype, but not easy to launch a product with production-grade code, support, sales, marketing, ops, scalability, etc.
With that change in perspective, you'd see exactly what we are seeing - scads of prototype-level product attempts that don't succeed when launched into a market.
Most of the folks I talk to in my age group are somewhere between anti-AI and "AI works for specific use cases". I find it is the younger folk who think it is miraculous and want to use it everywhere.
No, but that doesn't stop them from pushing vibe coded software at meetings and demanding it be put into production or otherwise regurgitating verbatim what their agents tell them.
Hey, this is my niche - I wrote what was once the leading policy management system for K-12 districts in the USA. It no longer holds that position, but it originated the niche, and it really taught me how policy is created.
Talking to the school board is absolutely a key piece of that, so that was a good move, but talking to the superintendent is an even better move. Most districts delegate the policy work to the superintendent. Most superintendents consult with legal firms who specialize in educational policy. At the same time, most school boards cannot sit down and have a discussion with you about a topic - everything they do has to be in the public eye, so these little blurbs at meetings are the limit of feedback, unless you can get them to put an agenda item at a meeting to have a longer discussion (Which you may be able to do when specific policies are up for reading or votes).
The workflow of how policy really works is that the school board (while being the actual decision-maker) is the last step, not the starting point. The actual starting point is in your state legislature as they set the state-level requirements. Attorneys will keep up on that and let the superintendents know what is needed to be in compliance with changing laws. Superintendents do make their own decisions, but will consult with policy consultants and recommend policy changes to the board. The board will have the policies presented at a meeting, provide time to read them and give feedback, and then finally have a vote on them.
In terms of influence, if you really want to invoke change at the policy level, start at the bottom of that workflow. Talk to your state legislature. Talk to your superintendent. Respond at board meetings to specific policies. And sure, give general feedback at a board meeting. They all help.
(Of course, not all districts follow that model... but most do.)
From the guidelines: "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html