The goal was not to avoid getting in trouble. The goal was getting as much attention to this issue as possible. I read that they livestream all of their "illegal" actions.
I agree that students shouldn't be allowed to use AI, at least for "thinking" assignments—because that is a waste of their learning time. This is similar to how they shouldn't be allowed to copy or plagiarize or have their parents do their assignments. School is fundamentally different from work. Work is about getting stuff done, and AI helps with that, so it should be used. School is about learning, which often uses "getting stuff done" as an interface, but don't mistake the output for the goal. The purpose of school is not whatever slop the kids output; it is the skills they learn, and LLMs doing assignments for you undercuts that.
>There is no proven educational benefit to generative AI in schools
Yeah, while LLMs can help you learn something if you prompt it, they can also just do the work for you, which is what most kids would choose if given unrestricted access.
>The group, made up of mental health experts, parents, educators, and organizations geared toward protecting children online
I thought that I disagreed with this article because of some iffy framings, like when it compared AI access for kids to pharmaceuticals, and these types of people are ruining the internet, but overall I agree with the thesis.
Thomas Massie (R-KY) has drafted a bill with the help of Naomi Brockwell (Ludlow Institute)—and introduced it co-sponsored with Lauren Boebert (R-CO)—which addresses the “third-party loophole” where the US government is able to obtain huge amounts of personal information from data brokers and other data collectors without a warrant or any oversight.
The Surveillance Accountability Act would:
Require a warrant for targeted investigations
Require a warrant for all surveillance
Prohibits warrantless use of facial recognition and license plate readers in public spaces
Eliminate buying data from data brokers by agencies where a warrant would typically be needed to obtain that data directly
Allow people to sue the government when their rights here have been violated
Will this have any muscle in the face of a FISA warrant? Imagine not (domestic vs foreign scope), but relevant as those could be used (as they have been in the past [1]) to more or less circumvent the meat and potatoes here when expedient.
Thomas Massie (R-KY) has drafted a bill with the help of Naomi Brockwell (Ludlow Institute)—and introduced it co-sponsored with Lauren Boebert (R-CO)—which addresses the “third-party loophole” where the US government is able to obtain huge amounts of personal information from data brokers and other data collectors without a warrant or any oversight.
The Surveillance Accountability Act would:
Require a warrant for targeted investigations
Require a warrant for all surveillance
Prohibits warrantless use of facial recognition and license plate readers in public spaces
Eliminate buying data from data brokers by agencies where a warrant would typically be needed to obtain that data directly
Allow people to sue the government when their rights here have been violated
reply