AI ‘infantilizes
younger generation’
In response to “Human intelligence must rule: AI needs limits imposed by people” (Tribune-Herald, Dec. 8), there are many ways to respond. I would like to offer my own preliminary experiences with it.
Undoubtedly, we must accept the technology as it exists and evolves, evaluating its advantages and disadvantages critically. Indeed, there are many areas where AI can be a great service by facilitating numerous tasks we cannot do well or easily.
But for students, there are major risks involved. Allowing a computer to write an assignment represents, well, plagiarism to the extreme.
It hurts the students not only because they will probably be caught and penalized, but they did not do their own task, did not accept the challenge of writing a critical piece, and hence did not learn the basics of how to formulate their own thoughts and to express them in a logical and convincing fashion.
AI cannot develop an innovative thesis, cannot come up with new ideas. AI is super good at summarizing various ideas or texts, comparing and contrasting them.
However, our students must learn how to find their own voice, develop their own ideas, and hence learn how to grow into independent adults. AI takes all that away and infantilizes the young generation.
As a teacher, I was able to detect the use of AI immediately without any external help (i.e., Turnitin) because the narrative was basically irrelevant, removed from the topic, and did not say anything meaningful.
The danger with AI can only increase in the near future, but the European Union at least has already formulated strict rules and regulations. The U.S. is, once again, lagging behind for miles and accepts everything in a laissez-faire manner.
But we the teachers are responsible for the intellectual growth of our students, and AI is at this point a toxic vehicle.
Albrecht Classen
Hilo
Merger not good
for Hawaiian Air
The recent announcement that Alaska Airlines will be gobbling up Hawaiian Airlines certainly came as a shock and disappointment to most of us who fly Hawaiian Airlines.
Hawaiian has flown and served the islands for nearly a century, enduring a bankruptcy from 2003 to 2005 with the help of employees not striking and pulling for the company, a strike that surely would have crippled the company for good.
That employee attitude of working with the company has been carried forth ever since and has helped make the company what it is today. Its ingress into the mainland and foreign markets has given us welcome specialized alternatives to the conglomerate fleets of the mainland.
This “merger” has been called a “match made in heaven,” and “both airlines have so much in common.” That phrase is undoubtedly coined by investors who stand to gain financially by the merger.
Having flown both airlines many times, with Alaska at times not even being able to offer a pillow or blanket in premium class, the only thing I see these two have in common are planes that have wings and wheels. Having been through a merger myself — being with the smaller company — the larger does not learn from the smaller, it only dictates.
Soon, the icon of the skies seen on the Hawaiian tail will be flying with a tear in her eye.
James Lehner
Keaau
