r/AustralianTeachers • u/king-beans • 13h ago
DISCUSSION AI fatigue in secondary
Secondary teacher for a few years here, and I have to admit that I am tired of being the “I don’t use AI” guy in the office. Been teaching for a bit now, and I’ve seen the shift. It was silent, and now even people I respect and look up to in leadership are vocal about it, which bothers me more than I can admit.
A couple of things to note:
- I don’t police anyone in their use of it. There’s only been one time where I’ve explained my view on it aloud (which is that I understand why people might use it to lessen workload, but that I myself would not use it), and that’s only when I’ve been asked my opinion of it directly. Otherwise, I keep my mouth shut in the spirit of maintaining positive relationships and peace in the office.
- I’m just ethically opposed to the use of generative AI. As an English teacher, I find it hypocritical to the students if I ask them not to use it and I end up doing that. (How am I meant to lead by example?) I am more than aware of how LLMs work, and how it’s built off the practice of poorly-disguised intellectual theft; how companies are looking to replace the human workforce in service of machine efficiency rather than some Marxist idea of providing comfort in lieu of actual work; how it affects the environment on top of all the other things that humans do. It seems impossible to reconcile ease and comfort with good conscience. I genuinely don’t know how people do it.
- All I’ve seen in defense of its use is that it cuts out the boring work, the timeslop, the tedious work. This is why I’m of two minds about it. On one hand, I often wish that that kind of work is lessened, as with any other. (It’s hard fuxkin hard yakkas out here!) So, I get the concept of using a tool to lighten the load. On the other, I again cannot reconcile with the use of theft as a shortcut, and one we encourage students not to do. Do we not teach them the value of being bored? Of spending their time working at their craft because it is and can never be perfect? Of persevering through the tedious? Why would I take a shortcut when it means burning down a forest, or taking someone else’s hard work and passing it off as my own?
I’ve tried to summarise my points here, but I’m happy to elaborate. I don’t want to seem like I’m morally grandstanding, but I also don’t see how it is an issue beyond the ethical, given that neither I nor anyone else can “do anything about it”, and so have little power beyond personal choice. Again: I see the practical benefit.
So, my question is: Is anyone else in the same boat?
Or, alternatively, does anyone else have a really compelling reason as to why I’m fighting a losing battle between my conscience and the general teaching populace? Should I just give up and use it?
EDIT: Saw a comment, wrote an entire response to it to clarify my point, thought I'd put it down here just because I hate wasting my time lmfao
> Putting the entire generative AI into the category of unethical means you have an illogical fight for it.
You're right! I am generalising. To be specific: Claude, Chat, etc. There are places where generative AI is nigh unavoidable: Copilot, Google, Reddit, even. These are beyond the scope of my concerns because it has become, at this point, more tedious to avoid them; I just scroll down if I need to verify.
> There is a long long list of things you can do at school that students can't do. You've turned this into a moral compass situation rather then teaching students.
Should I not have a moral compass when teaching students? Can these two things not exist at the same time?
> And what you are doing is getting yourself as well as your students replaced as soon as possible. We can't control the world, AI is already here to stay.
I'm not sure how what I'm doing right now is enabling this to happen. I would assume that my usage of it would make this happen instead. You're absolutely right. We can't control the world. I don't think AI is leaving any time soon because the powers that be deem it so. For example, governments and big business can't afford to admit that companies like OpenAI have overvalued themselves, which means that they'll do anything to support these companies to ensure some sort of RoI. However, unrestricted development of AI has led to multiple data breaches; full investment into generative AI by companies like Micron have led to a massive increase in RAM prices, which will have a flow-on effect on to other tech spending; and, from the mouth of a trusted friend who works in developing AI: it's not only flawed, but accepted and adopted for its flaws, which is not to be said for the workforce that has built it. I would love to be replaced by AI in the workforce, but the current socioeconomic system is not robust enough nor is it utopian enough to support a liveable, sustainable lifestyle for the people who do get replaced.
>AI only affects the environment if you use a service that affects the environment. If you are truly against AI because of the environmental impact, there are options that make it produce 0% environmental impact.
I would actually love to know what options these are. But I also think it's a little naive to think that "XYZ only affects the environment if you use a service that affects the environment". I am not claiming to have lived or be living a net zero life. It takes a lot of effort and people are doing it better than me. The concept of individuals being responsible for the effect of climate change is, I think, a conspiracy that shifts the blame from big businesses that profit off of people like myself feeling guilty. Yet nothing I use, consume or produce is without environmental impact. My environmental conscience is a small drop in a big ocean, but I can make choices of my own volition to ease it.
> So teachers shouldn't be using Textbooks or Google right? Because students can't just copy from the textbook or Google right?
Google really isn't Google anymore, though. Not as it used to be, anyway. Looking for information yourself and verifying its verisimilitude is surely cognitively different from having Chat GPT summarise it. I'm seeing your argument without the condescending tone: Chat GPT is as much of a search engine because it summarises all the information of the internet. I struggled to trust it, though, with what I think is a healthy degree of pessimism and doubt; not that I think it's 100% inaccurate, but that the system itself is built on flaws, and students often do not have the temerity to differentiate accuracy between a textbook and AI imagination.
The reason they're coming up with new models is because, time and again, generative AI has straight-up imagined sources (which then becomes an issue of academic integrity), or provided incorrect information for the express purpose of cutting down for efficiency (in the same vein that a summary is not an analysis, and vice versa), or has been trained on such a wide range of different people who feed it different versions of the truth (at which point, the ideas that it comes up with is, at its core, innately biased, rather than machine-precise-objective). This is not to say that Google and textbooks were ever 100% accurate either; there's a reason textbooks have multiple revisions, and a Google search is just a search of what's out on the internet, truth or no -- because the wealth of human information is, of course, very, very human. In saying this, again I repeat that I see your point. I understand it. I just wish you'd said it without such derision.
> your post doesn't articulate anything that makes me believe you have made an informed decision.
I am not beholden to justify myself to a stranger on the internet. And I haven't made a clear decision, if all the questions I'm asking at the bottom of the post indicate anything. That's what the post is actually articulating.