"Where earlier generations had patrons and cultural gatekeepers invested in long-term potential, today’s patrons are platforms." Apropos of nothing in your post, part of me is drawn to the aristocratic project. My understanding is that a well-functioning aristocracy, though I've never lived in one, can culturally lift all boats. (Jefferson followed Harrington in drawing a line between merit-based aristocrats and "pseudo-aristocrats"; maybe patronage softened that line as the "pseudos" took on some of their talented clients' glory.) The difference between patrons and platforms may be a difference between aristocracy and oligarchy, aristocracy's corrupted cousin.
(Of course, "History is written by learned men, and so it is natural and agreeable for them to think that the activity of their class supplies the basis of the movement of all humanity." -- Tolstoy)
More to one of your points, I wonder if doomspeak occupies the space between innovation and the filters that eventually make it useful and even legible to more than a few. I suppose that those faced with the printing press's startling advent might not have foreseen our day, when we lament that only three or four houses seem to set the agenda for mainstream English-language book publishing. More odds and ends: thank you for the reference to Dr. Burnett's article, which I look forward to reading. And thank you for opening up Ecclesiastes 3:11 for me in such a fresh way.
Now my main point: thank you for this fascinating post. As a writing instructor (until this past year), I've struggled with my colleagues to swim in the academic tidal wave brought on by AI. The more interesting articles that have come out about it, of course, are those that suggest how AI may benefit writing instruction. But this post sends me in an even more interesting direction: "we should offer work they want to do—assignments that demand creativity and thinking machines can’t fake." From a classroom-as-community perspective, it will take teachers' openness to experiment and to work with students--not just as "guinea pigs" but as coauthors--in developing such curricula. Such openness would "get us there" faster, anyway, than just reading up on the latest and continuing to ignore the greater possibilities of the classroom as a learning community.
"Where earlier generations had patrons and cultural gatekeepers invested in long-term potential, today’s patrons are platforms." Apropos of nothing in your post, part of me is drawn to the aristocratic project. My understanding is that a well-functioning aristocracy, though I've never lived in one, can culturally lift all boats. (Jefferson followed Harrington in drawing a line between merit-based aristocrats and "pseudo-aristocrats"; maybe patronage softened that line as the "pseudos" took on some of their talented clients' glory.) The difference between patrons and platforms may be a difference between aristocracy and oligarchy, aristocracy's corrupted cousin.
(Of course, "History is written by learned men, and so it is natural and agreeable for them to think that the activity of their class supplies the basis of the movement of all humanity." -- Tolstoy)
More to one of your points, I wonder if doomspeak occupies the space between innovation and the filters that eventually make it useful and even legible to more than a few. I suppose that those faced with the printing press's startling advent might not have foreseen our day, when we lament that only three or four houses seem to set the agenda for mainstream English-language book publishing. More odds and ends: thank you for the reference to Dr. Burnett's article, which I look forward to reading. And thank you for opening up Ecclesiastes 3:11 for me in such a fresh way.
Now my main point: thank you for this fascinating post. As a writing instructor (until this past year), I've struggled with my colleagues to swim in the academic tidal wave brought on by AI. The more interesting articles that have come out about it, of course, are those that suggest how AI may benefit writing instruction. But this post sends me in an even more interesting direction: "we should offer work they want to do—assignments that demand creativity and thinking machines can’t fake." From a classroom-as-community perspective, it will take teachers' openness to experiment and to work with students--not just as "guinea pigs" but as coauthors--in developing such curricula. Such openness would "get us there" faster, anyway, than just reading up on the latest and continuing to ignore the greater possibilities of the classroom as a learning community.
You give me still more to think about, Bryce. I appreciate your expansive response!