I am taking a contrary stance and not even as a contrarian voice, but based on basic patterns over the past few centuries. The whole article is geared towards a specific audience. The interesting thing is that it is not exactly wrong, but the way it presents facts is intended for a specific type of consumption: in this case -- generating anti AI sentiment.

<< Fundamental skills like mental arithmetic, memorising text, or reading a map could soon be obsolete as cognitive offloading becomes a normal way of working.

Calculator, books, gps -- the three have been trotted out each time and some ( what passed for books in ancient days ) decried by otherwise smart people, who simply could not fanthom a different way of solving an issue. Worse, they offered no reason for:

1. Why do I need to calculate everything in my head? 2. Why do I need to memorize every passage? 3. Why do I need to remember every step?

So kids, who saw an improvement simply ignored the old men.. and good thing too. Otherwise, I might not even have been able to read beowulf ( literally ).

<< it’s also the desire among people in positions of authority and influence

Is it? Recent news suggested that execs of various tech corps limit their kids passive screen time ( so no doom scrolling, no social media ).

<< able to retain concentration so that we can learn and distinguish between what is real and what is AI slop

True, but in a sense that has always been true. If so, what is the real reason for this 'collection of words'?

<< The danger here is the separation of process from “product”. In the eyes of the utilitarian tech-evangelist, the essay is simply a product, a sequence of words to be generated as quickly as possible.

And here is the issue. Author is concerned that their words are no longer going to be special; note, not completely unlike certain monks upon learning about printing press. How quaint.

<< But the process of writing is itself constitutive of understanding.Writing is thinking. It is the act of retrieving knowledge, wrestling with syntax, and organising logic that forges understanding.

Have you read some of the articles out there ( including this one )? There is no wrestling there. There might ( I am being charitable ) be some thinking, but if there is logic OR understanding, it is not beyond what is required for serving the owner of the writer. That is all there is to it.

<< When AI produces the final text, the student is the ventriloquist’s dummy, mouthing words that originated elsewhere.

Well, I will be darned. This individual is just taking words out of my mouth, because I was about to say all those talking ( sorry, writing ) heads are just parroting one another with the origin of the sound ( sorry again, word ) clearly not coming from them..

<< They possess the answer but lack the understanding of how it was derived

So.. we ban encyclopedias?

<< We are also witnessing a kind of cognitive laziness which some of our institutions are actively encouraging.

I can give him that. It does take effort not to rely on it.

<< It requires the uncomfortable sensation of not knowing

But... but.. the author knows.. he just told us all what to think...

<< float on a sea of algorithmic slop they have neither the will nor the wit to navigate.

And this is different from now how exactly? Scale? Kids who want to read will read. Kids who want to learn, will learn.

***

Honestly, I am hard pressed not to say this article is slop. Not even proper AI slop like we would expect today ( edit: because at least that is entertaining ). This is lazy human slop. High and mighty, but based on 'old man yells at the cloud' vibes.

AI will make our children stupid