1. Why You Shouldn’t Use ChatGPT

Straight to the point:

I think the author, Mitchell-Yellin (2023), kind of persuasively finds a diction and evidence that affirm his claims, and therefore (un)intentionally neglects some salient facts that could have enriched his propositions for a more balanced and acceptable persuasion.

For example, the author made mention of the alienation impact of AI — like in the generation of slideshows. This opinion would have been more comprehensive if the author had highlighted that not everyone would be a skillful designer, and employing the adeptness of AI is more like legally hiring a graphic designer to make one’s presentation professional. If it’s not one’s forte, a novice researcher or educator may not hope to take credit or bliss for the creation of such art even before the advent of AI.

Then, there are omissions of evidence in statements like:

“Let’s begin by noting that these tools don’t do anything new.”

“They complete familiar tasks with greater efficiency.”

“These gains in efficiency, however, come at the cost of alienation. Using these tools distances you from others, eliminates your worthwhile engagement in the productive process and undermines your ability to control and benefit from your own labor.”

From what I can see, most of the author’s stances are largely anecdotal and his premises and conclusions likely fall in the fallacy of secundum Quid (hasty generalisation without qualitative evidence).

The tonality of the author seems to concoct an atmosphere of absolute finality that persuades the readers to accept the claims made. Here are some cited examples:

“Yet there are some important implications of this new technology that have not been fully appreciated.”

“When you use ChatGPT to create the slideshow, you cut yourself out of the process by which it’s produced.”

Providing seemingly supporting evidence with the omission of words like ‘may, might, seems, seemingly, could’ makes one suspicious of the (in)deliberate attempt to convince the readers under the shadow of ad Verecundiam (appealing to [personal] authority)

Nonetheless, I appreciate the general conclusion that one needs to be wary of the negative effects (like alienation) of AI.

2. Integrating Generative AI into Higher Education: Considerations

Hodges and Ocak (2023), back most of their claims with evidence from reputable research and authorities like Forbes, CNN, UNESCO, EDUCAUSE amongst others. 

In my view, they did a great job in proving AI in our current context as “it is what it is.” For example, they state unequivocally that, “This new technology will be difficult to avoid.”

Nonetheless, the article might have canvassed the appreciation of the majority of readers (both for and against AI), if it hadn't just dwelled undivergently on the positive narrative alone. 

The most persuasive 

Hodges and Ocak

My view on AI?

This technology is here to stay, evolve, and revolve around everything we do, both in formal, non-formal, and informal education.