John Warner

The story of a product that almost certainly should be recalled. www.nytimes.com/2026/10/27/w...

nytimes.com

This sort of AI assistant technology will only be destructive unless and until the people developing it can actually grapple with these sorts of questions because they are at the heart of everything. What is worth doing with this one life? www.nytimes.com/2026/10/25/s...

nytimes.com

Very good development that this thinking is breaking through to the mainstream, as illustrated by @danagoldstein.bsky.social's article in today's Times. Many of us writing teachers have been issuing these warnings for years and now we're having a better conversation. www.nytim…

nytimes.com

LLMs aren’t “peers” so it makes no sense for them to do peer review. www.insidehighered.com/opinion/colu...

Generative AI Is Not Our Peer insidehighered.com

Two encouraging data points on the road to broad recognition that it's important to get students writing, rather than doing automation-assisted document production. 1st from @drrebeccawinthrop.bsky.social on a large study that showed using AI decreases original ideas. www.nyti…

Opinion | What 370,000 College Essays Tell Us About A.I.’s Effects on Creativity nytimes.com

Several times after I've given a talk or workshop about how I think we need to reorient instruction/assessment to deal with the presence of AI I've had senior faculty thank me and say I confirmed their instinct that it's time to move on. I think that's okay. www.chronicle.com/…

chronicle.com

I don’t mean this as a criticism of this piece, but this was obvious from the start. If you don’t know anything, AI is a substitute, not a tool. www.nytimes.com/2026/09/25/o...

nytimes.com

I'm a strong believer in including experiences that require students to grapple with ethics/morals of a discipline as part of a course. I've done it in every course I've ever taught, but the idea that improved moral formation will prevent "cheating" is simply wrong. www.nytime…

nytimes.com

Maybe, just maybe, the way to think productively about the intersection and AI is to spend much more time thinking about humans and much less about AI. That's what I tried to do in More Than Words through the lens of writing and teaching writing. www.amazon.com/More-Than-Wo...

Amazon amazon.com

Good pushback from Harvard faculty against the dean who doesn't understand learning. www.thecrimson.com/article/2026...

Harvard Humanities Faculty Push Back on Deming’s Call for AI Use in Writing Courses | The Harvard Crimson thecrimson.com

The Dean of Harvard College has been on a PR tour defending the institution's approach to AI and writing, but student testimony from inside the institution suggests that the school is retreating from human exchange as central to the learning experience. www.thecrimson.com/arti…

I’m a Writing Tutor at Harvard. The College is Failing Us. | The Harvard Crimson thecrimson.com

Sincere question: Why are journal editors obligated to give a full review to obvious AI slop or quasi-slop under the theory that there could be some nugget of worthwhile insight under the crap? Couldn't they just punt anything that's obviously not human-derived? www.chronicle.…

chronicle.com

Personalized AI feedback is not the same thing as personal feedback and the gap between them is very meaningful if our goal is to help students become better writers.

When an AI summarizes a text, it is not "reading," in any way close to what happens with humans. It is more accurate to call an AI summary a "compression." Compression of huge bodies of text can be very useful, but I think it's necessary to hold on to the distinction between compression and summary.

Not sure what this says about me, but the more I explore the capacities of generative AI the less it interests me. I'm not denying its potential power, just that how it does what it does is not nearly as interesting as the thoughts and expressions of some other, any other, human being.

Thinking about what I see as a contradiction lately. I think it's pretty clear that AI has advanced quite a lot in terms of its capabilities and reliability since the arrival of Chat GPT, and yet, despite this, I, personally, still have very little use for it. If Google search hadn't shit the bed...

I'm not a generative AI has no use guy at all, but some of the people who have read (or read an AI summary of) my book (More Than Words) and want to convince me that I'm wrong about something other need to lay off the Claude. Their brains are cooked. Two people this month told me they're "cyborgs."

My book (More Than Words: How to Think About Writing in the Age of AI) is obviously targeted towards education leaders/teachers/faculty, but a handful of students have found their way to it and universally tell me that they had never been introduced to writing as an expressive act in school.

The boldness of the AI author scams has increased with outright impersonation of real agents/agencies. I got two this morning. This must cross a line in terms of legality from even the solicitation stage, but I'm also aware that it would be very tough to find and punish the perpetrators.

I'm seeing a trend toward saying that students should only use AI to replace skills they've already "mastered," but I don't know about this. 1. At least with writing, there's no terminal proficiency and our proficiency, once achieved is not permanently fixed. I recently went through a couple weeks..

I feel about AI solving math proofs the same way I feel about AI playing chess or robot sprinters doing 100m faster than Usain Bolt, near total disinterest. I'm fundamentally more interested in what happens when humans intersect with these boundaries, rather than the clearing of the boundary itself.

Query: Why is @hopkinspress.bsky.social claiming 100% of the Anthropic settlement for the book I did with them whereas my commercial publishers are doing the expected 50/50 split. Anyone else run into this with them or other nonprofit publishers?