>> Altman’s analogy didn’t hold up. Calculators were uncontroversial
> Calculators are uncontroversial now. But when they first became cheap and widely available, they were not allowed in math classes.
The author of TFA means specifically for his cohort of students, not in general. He polled his students, and the result was that they thought calculators weren't seen as unethical but they were more skeptical/uncertain about AI. By his current students, now, not in general.
LLM’s have been widely available for approximately five years.
Five years into the availability of a calculator with an arbitrary advanced feature, it was controversial in academic contexts. Some of the author’s students could be grand-children of students from the early days of consumer calculators.
The author is comparing a new technology with an old one. And ignoring programable calculators which are still sometimes banned after fifty years…and many of the author’s students probably have used LLM’s for homework despite their statements that please the author.
Among other things, he's analyzing his students attitudes' re: AI and cheating with AI, and also comparing what they claim to feel vs what they actually do! It's mostly a reflection of what his students feel about the use of AI in English writing, not about calculators vs AI.
It seems as if you're responding to the line you quoted (out of context) through your preconceptions of what the article is about instead of actually reading the article!
> and many of the author’s students probably have used LLM’s for homework despite their statements that please the author.
"Probably have used LLM's"!? Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems you didn't read past the line you quoted, am I right? Because this is explicitly addressed multiple times, and the answer may surprise you.
> The teacher is asking a rhetorical question and getting an et cum spiritu tuo response.
He wasn't asking a rhetorical question! It was two polls, at least one of which was anonymous! Followed by several experiments!
I mean, you completely missed the point of the article and are making comments that are immediately refuted by simply reading it. You are making factually incorrect statements about the article, what am I to think? That you read it, but decided to ignore its contents to make some irrelevant remark about calculators vs LLMs?
The article is all about the tension of what his students initially believe (or claimed to believe, anyway) about AI-assisted writing, and what they come to realize at the end of the class. They also discuss authenticity vs formulaic writing, and are surprised by the results as well! They also discuss the tropes that show up in AI-writing, speculate on what may cause it, and are surprised about some of the results they get. They also discuss AI-assisted teaching. At the end, they revisit whether to be pro or anti AI, and the future of English classes, with or without AI.
All of it has very little to do with how recent LLMs vs calculators are. You focused on an out of context comment which doesn't inform the bulk of the article, and doesn't say what you claimed it said.
> Calculators are uncontroversial now. But when they first became cheap and widely available, they were not allowed in math classes.
The author of TFA means specifically for his cohort of students, not in general. He polled his students, and the result was that they thought calculators weren't seen as unethical but they were more skeptical/uncertain about AI. By his current students, now, not in general.