Yes, exactly!

For many of my students, it’s the first time they’ve done something like that since elementary school (sans the lookup part). They groan. But the muscle work is valuable imho 🧠💪

I phrased the search a different way and the bot happily gave the opposite claim also as true, once again connected to a different set of semi-credible sources. Among the other issues, then, is that we are dealing with de-contextualizing tools. Information lifted from its chain of reference.

Part of what makes this different from previous iterations of misreading/misunderstanding is that these claims do not arrive to the students within specific sources and contexts, but rather appear as generalized un-sourced truisms.

Kids currently only use the broad internet with supervision, but when we are looking something up or watching insta reels with them, we play spot the AI and spot the problems with the search results. For example, we looked up kasuqis (a chiton) mentioned in Molly of Denali and it gave us this:

It’s easy to do theory on things you dislike. Can you critique something you love? Can you hold the duality of loving it and understanding it? Or that’s what I was trying to do. Hope springs eternal!

“They” are absolutely going to market this idea.

Result of staffing and scale at smaller, private colleges compared to larger, public schools that can hire more than one specialist in rhetoric? There is one book that is more practical than theoretical that traces some of this, Gladstein and Regaignon

My very quick, under-researched thought about this is that it has to do with faculty/admin leadership. Comp/Rhet runs the pub university programs, and admin/gened committees of interdisciplinary faculty run the SLAC programs

Tbh I'm not even keen on machine learning. I'd love to see more use of "predictive model" which imo leads naturally to "what does it predict / model"