| Toward Abolishing Online Proctoring: Counter-Narratives, Deep Change, and Pedagogies of Educational Dignity | https://jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu/toward-abolishing-online-proctoring-counter-narratives-deep-change-and-pedagogies-of-educational-dignity/ |
| Applying the Baldwin Test to Ed-Tech | https://www.civicsoftechnology.org/blog/applying-the-baldwin-test-to-ed-tech |
| Pronouns | he/him/his |
Come join me and @MMFCiccone at the upcoming Civics of Technology conference as we hear how folks practice everyday resistance and refusal of ed-tech; reflect on how we might adapt the strategies in our own contexts; and raise possibilities for emerging Luddite pedagogies.
The free, two-day, online event includes keynotes from Dr. Luci Pangrazio on Thursday, August 3rd, and Dr. Roxana Marachi on Friday, August 4th. Register at: https://www.civicsoftechnology.org/2023conference
Hot(take) Chatbot Summer: Considering Value Propositions
Some thoughts on the proposed ChatGPT Business enterprise, cheating and detectors, and the "is it worth it" question six months after my last post
https://autumm.edtech.fm/2023/06/16/hottake-chatbot-summer-or-apathy-in-the-belly-of-the-beast/
AI machines aren’t ‘hallucinating’. Their makers are | Naomi Klein
“These models are enclosure and appropriation machines, devouring and privatizing our individual lives as well as our collective intellectual and artistic inheritances. And their goal … was always to profit off mass immiseration, which, under capitalism, is the glaring and logical consequence of replacing human functions with bots.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/08/ai-machines-hallucinating-naomi-klein
This is a paper close to my heart, about how datafication plays out inequitably in education, and how educator responses make rational sense
‘Technology is not created by the sky’: datafication and educator unease
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17439884.2023.2206137
Postprint - bit.ly/datafication_unease
Solidarity with all students fighting online proctoring and its racist, dehumanizing academic surveillance software.
"But when Pocornie, who is Black, tried to scan her face, the software kept saying it couldn’t recognize her: stating 'no face found.'"
https://www.wired.com/story/student-exam-software-bias-proctorio/
I see people asking: How else will we critically study GPT-4 etc then?
Don't. Opt out. Study something else.
GPT-4 should be assumed to be toxic trash until and unless #OpenAI is *open* about its training data, model architecture, etc.
I rather suspect that if we ever get that info, we will see that it is toxic trash. But in the meantime, without the info, we should just assume that it is.
To do otherwise is to be credulous, to serve corporate interests, and to set terrible precedent.
Fascinating story: https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/07/privacy-loophole-ring-doorbell-00084979
At first the police just wanted two hours of footage from this guy's doorbell Ring cam.
"It was just the beginning.
They asked for more footage, now from the entire day’s worth of records. And a week later, Larkin received a notice from Ring itself: The company had received a warrant, signed by a local judge. The notice informed him it was obligated to send footage from more than 20 cameras — whether or not Larkin was willing to share it himself."
Today the Civics of Technology Blog reposted my Prior to (or instead of) using #ChatGPT with your students post from January
https://www.civicsoftechnology.org/blog/prior-to-or-instead-of-using-chatgpt-with-your-students
Autumm
Catherine Cronin
czernie
Timnit Gebru (she/her).
Prof. Emily M. Bender(she/her)
Kashmir Hill