Weird how I’ve been using AI tools for over two years now and haven’t become functionally illiterate nor have I forgotten how to write code. The education system will certainly need to adapt to developments of new technology as it always has in the past. Your thesis would also suggest that CPC doesn’t understand how material dialectic work given that China is embracing AI at all levels of society. Seems to me that you’re just creating a moral panic because you have personal biases against this new technology.
Your personal experience isn’t representative of the systemic reality. You were educated prior to the implementation of AI, and seem to not be interested in even positing what impact unfettered access to it will have over the lifetime of a student from early grades to collage level. “The education system will certainly need to adapt to developments of new technology as it always has in the past.” Is such a empty platitude. LLMs strike at the rot inside the education system, and effectively “solve” it for all the metrics that matter for progressing to graduation for both primary and secondary education. It would take a fundamental restructuring of education coupled with a principled and aggressive approach to combating the negative impact AI systems will have on early learners.
The level of applied Marxist theory in China is debatable, and their economic activities lend themselves more towards the realization of Keynesian economics then anything. There has recently been a push to build more educational support for Marxism in China but for decades many economists in China were getting their education from American institutions. All that said, they are still managing the contradictions of capitalism better then any other nation. They are still being squeezed by external capitalist forces and their national capitalist class should always be held as suspect, since their is still opportunity for counter revolution in China. Regardless of my personal perspective on China, the creation of AI in China is still a creation of the capitalist class in China, and its implementation in their enterprises will be very different then the CPCs implementation in “all levels of society”. Last I heard they were implementing it in “all levels of government”, maybe that’s changed.
Regardless, you historically take a very uncritical view of AI, and I’m not sure if that’s because you are justifying your own personal consumption of the technology or simply holding an accelerationist perspective on the matter. What I am sure of, however, is this this conversation is going to be fruitless for both of us. I’ve made my position clear I think, and so have you.
Your assertions aren’t representative of systemic reality either. I’m very much interested in having a rational discussion about how this technology will be used and how it will impact society. However, claiming that it’s going to lead to people not being able to use language is not that.
LLMs strike at the rot inside the education system, and effectively “solve” it for all the metrics that matter for progressing to graduation for both primary and secondary education. It would take a fundamental restructuring of education coupled with a principled and aggressive approach to combating the negative impact AI systems will have on early learners.
Yes, it will take fundamental restructuring of the education system because simply memorizing trivia is no longer a valuable skill.
The level of applied Marxist theory in China is debatable, and their economic activities lend themselves more towards the realization of Keynesian economics then anything.
It’s incredible that managed to convince yourself that you understand socialism better than people who are actually building a socialist society.
They are still being squeezed by external capitalist forces and their national capitalist class should always be held as suspect, since their is still opportunity for counter revolution in China.
About as much opportunity as there is for pigs to sprout wings an fly.
Regardless of my personal perspective on China, the creation of AI in China is still a creation of the capitalist class in China, and its implementation in their enterprises will be very different then the CPCs implementation in “all levels of society”. Last I heard they were implementing it in “all levels of government”, maybe that’s changed.
The reality of China is that the capitalist class is subordinate to the socialist state, and activities which the state sees as being harmful to society are shut down with prejudice. A great example of this is how DeepSeek was born. The company originally focused on quant trading and the government decided it was destabilizing the economy, so the whole industry was shut down forcing the company to pivot. If AI was seen as harmful by CPC, then the exact same thing would happen.
Yet, we see the exact opposite with AI being integrated in government services, education, healthcare, and industry. It’s also quite telling that majority of people in China see this technology in a positive light as opposed to people living under western regimes. You just hand wave this incontinent fact away because it doesn’t fit your doomsday narrative.
Regardless, you historically take a very uncritical view of AI, and I’m not sure if that’s because you are justifying your own personal consumption of the technology or simply holding an accelerationist perspective on the matter. What I am sure of, however, is this this conversation is going to be fruitless for both of us. I’ve made my position clear I think, and so have you.
By take uncritical view of AI you mean I take a rational view of this technology as being a new tool that we must learn to integrate into society. I completely agree that this discussion is going to be as pointless as every other discussion we’ve had previously on the subject.
Weird how I’ve been using AI tools for over two years now and haven’t become functionally illiterate nor have I forgotten how to write code. The education system will certainly need to adapt to developments of new technology as it always has in the past. Your thesis would also suggest that CPC doesn’t understand how material dialectic work given that China is embracing AI at all levels of society. Seems to me that you’re just creating a moral panic because you have personal biases against this new technology.
Your personal experience isn’t representative of the systemic reality. You were educated prior to the implementation of AI, and seem to not be interested in even positing what impact unfettered access to it will have over the lifetime of a student from early grades to collage level. “The education system will certainly need to adapt to developments of new technology as it always has in the past.” Is such a empty platitude. LLMs strike at the rot inside the education system, and effectively “solve” it for all the metrics that matter for progressing to graduation for both primary and secondary education. It would take a fundamental restructuring of education coupled with a principled and aggressive approach to combating the negative impact AI systems will have on early learners.
The level of applied Marxist theory in China is debatable, and their economic activities lend themselves more towards the realization of Keynesian economics then anything. There has recently been a push to build more educational support for Marxism in China but for decades many economists in China were getting their education from American institutions. All that said, they are still managing the contradictions of capitalism better then any other nation. They are still being squeezed by external capitalist forces and their national capitalist class should always be held as suspect, since their is still opportunity for counter revolution in China. Regardless of my personal perspective on China, the creation of AI in China is still a creation of the capitalist class in China, and its implementation in their enterprises will be very different then the CPCs implementation in “all levels of society”. Last I heard they were implementing it in “all levels of government”, maybe that’s changed.
Regardless, you historically take a very uncritical view of AI, and I’m not sure if that’s because you are justifying your own personal consumption of the technology or simply holding an accelerationist perspective on the matter. What I am sure of, however, is this this conversation is going to be fruitless for both of us. I’ve made my position clear I think, and so have you.
Your assertions aren’t representative of systemic reality either. I’m very much interested in having a rational discussion about how this technology will be used and how it will impact society. However, claiming that it’s going to lead to people not being able to use language is not that.
Yes, it will take fundamental restructuring of the education system because simply memorizing trivia is no longer a valuable skill.
It’s incredible that managed to convince yourself that you understand socialism better than people who are actually building a socialist society.
About as much opportunity as there is for pigs to sprout wings an fly.
The reality of China is that the capitalist class is subordinate to the socialist state, and activities which the state sees as being harmful to society are shut down with prejudice. A great example of this is how DeepSeek was born. The company originally focused on quant trading and the government decided it was destabilizing the economy, so the whole industry was shut down forcing the company to pivot. If AI was seen as harmful by CPC, then the exact same thing would happen.
Yet, we see the exact opposite with AI being integrated in government services, education, healthcare, and industry. It’s also quite telling that majority of people in China see this technology in a positive light as opposed to people living under western regimes. You just hand wave this incontinent fact away because it doesn’t fit your doomsday narrative.
By take uncritical view of AI you mean I take a rational view of this technology as being a new tool that we must learn to integrate into society. I completely agree that this discussion is going to be as pointless as every other discussion we’ve had previously on the subject.