Thursday 17th of October 2024

is the pencil mightier than the monkey driving a smartphone?

Concerns youth screen time and AI use far exceed guidance as experts propose rethink to school bans

It's no secret that Australians are grappling with the rapid rise of digital technology, whether it's excessive screen times at home, the inability to tell truth from fiction online, or the intractable impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on institutions and jobs.

 

By Oscar Coleman

 

Nearly everybody has more technology in their lives than they would like, and the barrier to entry is not only getting lower, but younger, with eSafety data showing a majority of children online before age four.

However while official guidelines recommend children aged five to 17 limit recreational, non-school screen time to two hours per day, many parents, students and teachers who responded to an ABC call out about the education system suggested such guidelines are out of touch, and do not reflect reality.

While screen time in excess of two hours a day is common,others say it's just the tip of the iceberg, with the widespread use of AI to cheat, and interminable use of devices at home and in class now just a part of everyday life.

"Teachers claim to have AI detectors, but many people I know write essays and assessments with AI and still get top marks," said 16-year-old Tasmanian private school student Jessica, who asked to use pseudonym. 

"Some teachers even use AI to write lesson plans or check for cheating, which kind of betrays the point of not using it and sets a bad example."

But with digital technologies and AI only becoming more entrenched, some experts say that rather than cracking down on use, it might be time for a change.

'I miss reading an actual book, drawing a proper picture'

Several call-out submissions spoke of students running one original essay through AI multiple times to obscure copied assignments.

On the topics of screen time and AI-assisted plagiarism, students like Jessica pointed to contradictory policies of requiring kids to have their own devices, or relying on online programs to complete assignments, while also trying to impose bans.

"With devices being 'personal', nothing really can be done to stop AI use and screen time," she said.

"AI usage is becoming an increasingly bigger part of [the problem]. And while I don't agree with it, I don't know what — if anything — can be done; by teachers, schools or the Department of Education."

Other respondents said kids were foregoing sleep, using devices late at night and sometimes "waking up at dawn to get online".

Mary, a Melbourne-based high school teacher with experience in both private and public schools who also asked to use a pseudonym, said excessive use of devices was common.

"A young student told me they're waking up at 6am — two hours early — to work on their 'snap streak'," she said.

"That blew my mind."

The educator said there were regular occurrences of "students watching Netflix in class, AirPods tucked behind hair".

On AI, Mary said some students viewed it as "just another hack" to save time, similar to watching a film version of a set text instead of reading the book.

She said students often told her they didn't have enough time to do assignments from scratch, but she believed they lacked time and focus due to unrestrained screen time at home.

Like many other parents, Dicle Demirkol, a mother based in Melbourne's north-west, said she was not "against social media and the internet as they can be powerful tools" so long as kids were informed about their role in modern life, and that the education system evolved to meet that need effectively.

"As the world changes rapidly, so do our needs. With the internet and the constant exchange of (mis)information, I wonder if what [schools] offer will stay relevant in the future. 

"I don’t think we're fully prepared."

However, rules intended to limit tech use and ban copy-and-paste plagiarism through AI are pointless, according to some students and educators.

In order to speak freely without fear of being penalised by schools, employers or the community, several teachers and students — like Jessica and Mary above — requested some level of anonymity.

"No matter how many different sites our school blocks, there is always something we can get to: YouTube, checking emails, reading news, playing Tetris… there's never only one thing going on in the classroom," one year 12 student in Queensland said.

"I miss using pen and paper, reading an actual book, drawing a proper picture.

"I feel as if I am teaching myself, and simply being supervised by a teacher."

The student reiterated her traditional view quite simply: "Students should not be taught by a computer".

Teachers told the ABC that unrestrained screen time and misuse of AI was ubiquitous, regardless of institution or school policy.

"Back in my day it would have been passing notes — this is well beyond that," Mary said. 

"They're not just chatting, they're actually completely distracted." 

Several tutors, often tasked with picking up lost school hours, also expressed concerns about "irresponsible use of technology" amid noticeable declines in attention spans, handwriting, spelling, and claims of reduced critical thinking skills.

But with modern life increasingly tech-dependent, many are divided on whether the answer is more bans and a return to low-tech teaching, or rapidly embracing its use, albeit with better-understood frameworks. 

'It's the nature of the task, not the tools'

Paul Haimes is a Perth-born associate professor of design at Ritsumeikan University in Japan who teaches a number of Australian exchange students — and he says the rapid adoption of AI caught everyone off guard.

"I, like many of my colleagues, was caught completely off guard by the sudden arrival of publicly-available AI applications like ChatGPT," he told the ABC.

"The reality of course though is that AI is here to stay, and schools and universities need to quickly figure out what the legitimate uses are, and provide clear guidance to both teaching staff and students.

"At the very least, AI shouldn't be used to undermine the objectives of a course or curriculum, but if there are ways that it could be utilised to support students' learning that isn't just a lazy shortcut for them, then it might be worth considering.

"Given the different types of assessment out there, the specifics are likely something best addressed at the course level, in line with a department or school's other policies."

For educators, AI has the potential to help in several ways, like assisting with repetitive administrative tasks, or helping design assessments and lesson plans.

Multiple teachers told the ABC the tools had already been a big help.

Education professor at Curtin University, Karen Murcia, underlined that electronic devices are crucial to modern life, and that it is important to be "reflective and transparent" about their use and potential, as well as that of AI.

"We have to think more widely than simply 'screens' when we talk about digital environments and impacts on children's development," she said.

"By withdrawing children from devices and the digital world, we might be denying them their basic rights, if we're not empowering them with critical foundation skills for digital citizenship."

She said it was important to accept technology can make aspects of traditional assignments redundant, and that AI can achieve things that no teacher in a physical classroom with 30 students can do, like providing tailored 24/7 tutoring and support.

"The question for me is, what is the nature of the assessments we're giving to students? Are we asking them to be creative and innovative?" she said.

"It's the nature of the task, not the tools that they're using."

Asked whether screen time and sedentary behaviour guidelines were out of touch with modern expectations, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Aged Care said limiting sedentary activities was "essential for overall health and wellbeing" and to "reduce the risk of chronic disease".

They noted that "the guidelines themselves acknowledge that meeting the recommendations may be challenging at times", but the important aspect was to "ensure a healthy balance", and find opportunities to be physically active whenever possible.

"Schools, school systems and teachers share a responsibility in how and when to use these tools," the spokesperson said, with reference to the December 2023 framework for AI in schools. 

"Individual states and territories, and non-government school sectors, are responsible for rolling out the framework … [which] will be reviewed at least every 12 months so that it keeps pace with developments."

There are also practical steps, released by the eSafety Commission, that parents can take to help kids maintain a healthy relationship with screens, while ensuring they get enough sleep and exercise.

Commissioner Julie Inman Grant told the ABC that "there really is no magic number" when it comes to how long you should let your child be on screens.

"It can be easy to focus only on the clock, but the quality and nature of what they are doing online, and your involvement, are just as important," she advised.

"If it starts to get in the way of their sleep or their ability to get outside for fresh air and exercise, or if it starts impacting face-to-face connections with family and friends, then it might be time to sit down with your child to come up with a plan to strike a more healthy balance of online and offline activities.

She emphasised it was important to do this together "as young people are more likely to respond to rules that they have helped come up with".

"And make sure as a parent you are setting a good example," the eSafety Commissioner added.

It's no good telling your child get off screens if you're sitting looking at your phone at the dinner table.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-16/education-tech-ai-screen-time-concerns/104450546

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

lobotomised....

 

Cut the Truth Out of Our Heads

    by 

 

The censors are losing patience. They have gone from regretting the existence of free speech and gaming the system as best they can to fantasizing about ending it through criminal penalties. 

You can observe this change in temperament – from frustration to fury to calling for violent solutions – over the last several weeks. And it serves as a reminder: censorship was never the end point. It was always about controlling society’s “cognitive infrastructure,” which is how we think. And to what end? A secure monopoly on political power. 

This week, Fox reporter Peter Doocy was sparring with the White House spokesperson over whether FEMA is funding migrants even as it cannot help American storm survivors. She immediately shot back and called this “disinformation.” Peter wanted to know what part of his question qualified. Jean-Pierre said it was the whole context of the question and otherwise never said. 

It was clear to anyone who was watching that the term “disinformation” means to her nothing other than a premise or fact that is unwelcome and needs to be shut down. This messaging has been further reinforced by a Harris/Walz ad blaming unnamed “misinformation” from Trump for exacerbating hurricane suffering following Hurricane Helene. 

This exchange came only days after Hillary Clinton suggested criminal penalties for disinformation, else “they will lose total control.” It’s an odd plural pronoun because, presumably, she is not in control..unless she regards herself as a proxy for an entire class of rulers. 

Meanwhile, former presidential candidate John Kerry said the existence of free speech is making government impossible. Kamala Harris herself has sworn to “hold social media accountable” for the “hate infiltrating their platforms.” And well-connected physician Peter Hotez is calling for Homeland Security and NATO to put an end to debates over vaccines

You can detect the fury in all their voices, almost as if every post on X or video on Rumble is causing them to lose their minds, to the point that they are just saying it out loud: “Make them stop.”

Hurricane Milton seems to have caused the censors to flip out in a violent rage, as people wondered whether and to what extent the government might have something to do with manipulating the weather for political reasons. A writer in the Atlantic explodes: “I’m running out of ways to explain how bad this is. What’s happening in America today is something darker than a misinformation crisis,” while decrying “outright conspiracy theorizing and utter nonsense racking up millions of views across the internet.”

Catch that? It’s the viewing itself that is the problem, as if people do not have the capacity to think for themselves. 

The old meme of the man staying up late typing because “someone is wrong on the Internet” applies now to an entire swath of the ruling class. They want freedom out and the stakeholders in control, somehow forcing the whole of the digital age into a version of 1970s television with three channels and 1-800 numbers. The Biden administration even refounded the Internet, replacing the Declaration of Freedom with a new Declaration of the Future.

We are reminded of Katherine Hepburn’s performance as Violet Venable in Tennessee Williams’s play Suddenly, Last Summer

Violet is an heiress and widow with a son Sebastian on whom she doted and with whom she traveled internationally for many years. One summer, her niece Catherine (played by Elizabeth Taylor) goes on the trip instead and the son dies. 

Catherine was clearly traumatized by something but she doesn’t know what. But this much remained in her memory: Sebastian was not a good man. Instead he used the women who accompanied him as bait to procure boys for his sexual pleasure. 

Violet was so infuriated with this observation – all she could remember about Sebastian’s death –  that she sent Catherine to a mental hospital. She further has every intention of endowing a local hospital to specialize in lobotomies on the condition that they give one to Catherine. 

Violet wants Catherine to stop her “babblings” and instead “just be peaceful.” Catherine observes that they simply want to cut the truth out of her head before she comes around to recalling the whole of it, which is more horrible than one can imagine. 

Doctor: “There still is a great deal of risk.”

Violet: “But it does pacify them, I’ve read that. It quiets them down. It suddenly makes them peaceful.”

Doctor: “Yes, that it does do, but…”

Her goal was an invasive surgery on her sister’s daughter, which she was willing to fund in order to assure it would take place by a major gift in the guise of philanthropy. It was all in the interest of psychological self-protection. 

Violet simply did not want to know the truth. She wanted instead her own “truth” to be the constructed narrative: her son was a wonderful and pious gentleman and her niece was a crazy person, a deplorable, a speaker of misinformation and disinformation. 

In order to protect Violet’s own self-perceptions and her own delusion, she was willing to invade the brain of her own niece with a knife to stop her from clear thinking and clear speaking. 

Catherine: “Cut the truth out of my brain. Is that what you want? You can’t. Not even God can change the truth.”

As with all of Tennessee Williams, and all great literature, the story is about far more than what it seems. It is really about the lengths to which a wealthy ruling class is willing to go in order to prevent the puncturing of their own illusions about the world. 

In those days, lobotomies were more common, even approved, and often deployed by those who could afford them to be imposed on relatives. The stories are quite legendary, so there was nothing unrealistic about Williams’s story. Psycho-surgery was deployed for decades in the service of cutting truth out of people’s brains. 

So far we’ve only experienced a relatively low-grade version of this compared with what they really want. YouTube accounts have been demonetized and deleted. Facebook posts have been throttled and banned. LinkedIn’s algorithms punish posts that take issue with regime narratives. This has not slowed down in light of litigation but rather continued and intensified. 

The goal is to close up the Internet. They would have done it by now if it were not for the First Amendment, which stands in their way. For now, they will continue to work through university cutouts, third-party providers, phony baloney fact-checkers, pressure on tech firms that provide government services at a price, and other mechanisms to achieve indirectly what they cannot do directly just yet. 

Among the strategies is the political persecution of dissenters. Alex Jones is a bellwether here and his company is being bankrupted. Steve Bannon, the philosopher king of MAGA, has been in jail for the entire election season for having defied a Congressional subpoena on the advice of counsel. The protestors on January 6 have been in prison not for damages caused or trespassing but for landing on the wrong side of the regime. 

Most of us had an intuition that the Covid vaccine mandates themselves were not entirely about health but rather a tactic of exclusion of those who were not fully trusting of authority. This was rather obvious when it came to the military and the medical profession but less apparent within academia where noncompliant students and professors were effectively purged for their refusal to risk their lives for pharma. 

There was an element of malice, too, in the mask mandates. Even though there was zero scientific evidence that a Chinese-made synthetic cloth worn on the face can change epidemiological dynamics, they did serve well as a visible sign to separate believers from unbelievers, and also as a sadistic means of reminding individualists of who is really running the show. 

The final means of censorship is violence against person and property, while the end is to control what you think in service of one-party rule. Major tech companies and major media are wholly complicit in bringing this about. Only a handful of services are stopping this and they are all being targeted by the regime through myriad forms of lawfare. 

In the final scenes of Suddenly, Last Summer, Catherine is finally induced to recall the horrifying details of her cousin’s death and tell family members the fullness of the truth. Aunt Violet cannot handle it and defaults into denial and psychopathology herself, dishing out her own litany of disinformation. 

Therein the viewer is presented with the deepest irony of all: every claim that Violet made against Catherine eventually comes to pertain to Violet herself. The person who wanted to use violence to cut the brain out of the truthspeaker was merely protecting herself against a terrible truth that she could not handle. 

And there it is: it’s the liar more than anyone who has reason to fear free speech.

Postscript: as this article is released, the website archive.org has been fully down for the better part of a week, supposedly due to a catastrophic DDOS attack. The private owners say the data has been saved and it will be restored in time. Maybe. But consider: this the one tool we have for having a verified memory of what was posted when. It is how we found that WHO changed its definition of herd immunity. It’s how we found that the CDC was behind the mail-in ballot fiasco of 2020. It’s how we know that FTX funded anti-Ivermectin studies. And so on. The links were stable and good, never down. 

Until now, two weeks before the election. We are of course supposed to believe that this shocking collapse is purely a coincidence. Maybe. Probably. And yet without this website – a central point of failure – vast amounts of the history of the last quarter century is deleted. The entire contents of the web can be re-written as vaporware, here one instant, gone the next. Even if this site does come back, what will be missing and how long will it take to figure it out? Will the Internet have been lobotomized? If not this time, could it happen in the future? Certainly. 

 from Brownstone Institute.

 

https://ronpaulinstitute.org/cut-the-truth-out-of-our-heads/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.