[jgmedr]

I believe the intent behind implementing such a policy is admirable. By teaching students practical use of A.I. tools, their current limitations and biases, and how to refine the prompts and results will be a necessary skill. However, I also find it problematic.

> As a result, the projects this semester are much better than previous pre-AI classes.

The use of the term "better" is concerning. According the blog, the subject of the class is "innovation". He is essentially praising the A.I. ability to innovate and not his students. If the object of school is to learn, what did his students learn about innovation and how was that measured despite ChatGPT? It reads as if his students learned about using and optimizing a tool and not the subject at hand.

The common argument for A.I. is that it will free humans to pursue more interesting and creative activities. The pervasive theme among many of these articles suggests creativity and thought to become a commodity, where the role of the human is to simply intervene and edit. Many architects are beginning to forfeit design to Midjourney, and editing the results. We need to ask ourselves: is authoring or editing more worthwhile?