The idea of an AI utopia mostly comes from the same companies making money from AI, which makes it feel more like marketing or advertising than a real prediction. A world where no one has to work might sound good on paper, but it ignores who would actually benefit and whether those changes are even realistic. Also, not everyone would even want that. If your work feels purposeful, like teaching, why would you want to give that up? It makes me wonder if these utopian promises are oversimplifying what gives our lives meaning.

If people aren’t double checking AI, then there’s no real backup to catch mistakes or manipulation. Can we actually trust people to be responsible with AI when there’s so much pressure to take shortcuts?

We all want more free time, and it sounds great in theory. But in today’s culture, so much of it goes into doom scrolling through social media or binge watching on streaming services. Maybe the real issue isn’t how much free time we have, but how we use it. Even if AI gave us extra hours of freedom, would most people actually use them productively to grow and learn or would it just turn into more wasted time?

I think this is an important distinction. Just being able to access information with AI isn’t the same as actually learning and internalizing it. Memorizing facts may not be the point of education, but being able to apply and use knowledge is. If we skip the process of working through ideas ourselves then we risk missing the deeper how of learning

I see Lin’s point that GE is supposed to expose us to new subjects we might not choose on our own, and I get how that can sometimes spark new passions. But for many students, especially those paying high tuition or with family pressure, electives don’t always feel like opportunities, they can feel like financial burdens. Switching majors is a privilege that not everyone can afford, so while GE may lead to discovery for some, for others it just feels like extra cost and stress on top of pursuing their main degree. Maybe these courses could be the place where students learn how to use AI responsibly without the same career pressure as major-specific classes.

I agree that employers care a lot about creativity and being able to think quickly on your feet, but I also think there’s value in knowing how to use AI as a tool. For example, when I was on a supply call, the teacher showed me a lesson plan she had quickly generated with ChatGPT on her phone. As an elementary teacher with so many classes to prepare for, I could see how it saved her time. But I think the best use of AI is to spark ideas, putting your own creativity into the prompt and then tweaking the output for your students, rather than just taking the first thing it gives you.

I actually think university could be the right place to learn how to use AI responsibly if it’s done in the right way. If students are going to use it in their future careers, it makes sense to practice now in a guided environment with feedback. Philosophy could potentially be a good place to start, since it’s about asking hard questions, examining ethics, and learning how to balance new tools with human reasoning.

I see Lin’s point, but it also seems likely that employers will want graduates who can integrate AI into their work. The real issue may not be whether students use AI, but how they’re taught to balance it with their own thinking and judgment. Just like calculators became part of math education, maybe AI should become part of building new literacies in today’s classrooms.

AI should help us gain confidence in navigating digital tools and not lessen it. For example, if a student always relies on ChatGPT to create essays, they might freeze up when asked to write a response in class that is timed or on an exam. Instead of building their own meaning-making skills, they become anxious without the tool. This also weakens participatory culture. If people are always doubting their own voice, they stop contributing authentically to discussions with the real human perspective.

Literacy today isn’t just about reading and writing but about critically evaluating digital information. If AI can make mistakes or be manipulated, then we need those skills even more to question what we see instead of just accepting it.

If AI can replace not just routine work but also creative and knowledge-based jobs, what’s left that makes us valuable as humans? It’s unsettling to think that our ability to reason and make meaning (the one thing that sets us apart) might be the last thing we have to protect. We risk losing the very qualities that give us value in a future where machines handle everything else.

This reminds me of Knobel & Lankshear’s idea of new literacies as something we practice to communicate and make meaning. If we just rely on AI in school, we’re not actually building those skills, and it will show when we can’t hold a real conversation in life or at work without AI guiding us. You lose confidence and the ability to really participate.

If we hand our reasoning over to AI, aren’t we giving up the very thing that makes us unique as a species? Instead of treating AI as a tool, it feels like we’re letting it replace our core advantage. If our creativity is replaced by AI, we lose the authentic human contributions that make participatory culture meaningful.

New literacies research shows how important feedback, peer mentoring, and revision are in online spaces. Lin’s example of a teacher secretly using AI for feedback shows how cheating this process undermines trust and genuine learning.

I never considered how AI cheating can effect your classmates. If grades are curved, using AI unfairly can lower the chances for students who actually did the work. It makes me see academic honesty less as just a rule and more as a responsibility to my peers and those around me. This makes me wonder if professors should adjust grading practices in the AI era (like moving away from curves), or is it still up to students be fair?

This shows why new literacies are about checking and questioning digital tools. As a supply, I once used AI to find the answers to an algebra worksheet because I did not have time to solve every equation fully before the class started, and I ended up finding a miscalculation. If I hadn’t checked, I would have misled my students. It proves Lin’s point that we can’t just trust AI’s reasoning without critical evaluation.