A high schooler writes about AI tools in the classroom

Maybe they can allow AI for writing but raise the bar on quality so the blind copy-paste submissions still fail. I've still never read a good AI-generated doc at work, it's always verbose and aimless. At this point I close the doc if I catch a whiff. Unlike the AI code which is fine.

It's probably either that or ban it and do everything in-person, which might have to be the stopgap solution.

> Maybe they can allow AI for writing but raise the bar on quality so the blind copy-paste submissions still fail.

These are highschoolers, still learning to write - their output won't be the best. It won't be long at all until AI can write as well as the average (honest, pre-AI) highschooler, if we're not past that point already.

We're well past the point of AI being able to write better than the average highschooler. It's not even close. What I remember from my high school was that the average student could barely put together 3 coherent paragraphs.

I am sure that there are ways of incorporating AI in pedagogically useful ways. But.

Generative AI is new. Pedagogical research involving them is even newer. Teachers are rarely given resources to meaningfully explore new methods. Expecting teachers to stumble through updated processes to enable students to incorporate generative AI is a mess.

Students are also children. They'll take the path of least resistance if it is available to them. Expecting students to meaningfully incorporate generative AI into their learning process rather than just reaching for "ugh this essay is dumb - chatgpt give me an essay on the use of time skipping in To the Lighthouse."

The situation is a total mess.

You have severely overestimated most high-school students.

The whole reason that this is an issue is that LLMs have been able to match or beat student output since chatGPT 3.5.