My experience as a TA is students definitely do not have the knowledge to critically verify responses.
Human TA's have ego, AI doesn't. With proper tools, you should be able to steer an AI agent.
I think both humans and AI agents both have their drawbacks and benefits. That's why the last section of the paper discusses that we even need to teach students (or provide tools) to help them decide where to use AI vs non-AI tools.
I have to say, I really urge you to consider the nature of your framing here.
As you can tell I am quietly (or maybe not-so-quietly) appalled by the zeitgeist around generative AI, but even if I were not, I hope I would still see that this kind of linguistic framing is insensitive and self-defeating if not wholly inappropriate and demeaning if you want to see any co-operation from educators, who are as a broad picture, tired, dedicated, hopeful people who -- unlike LLMs -- can and do place significant moral and ethical value on teaching.
When the question is of the form "what do you think about the ethical implications of using AIs?" and the quick answer is "humans also make mistakes" I think the entire premise is on pretty shaky ground.
>... I would still see that this kind of linguistic framing is insensitive and self-defeating if not wholly inappropriate and demeaning if you want to see any co-operation from educators
I think this was spot on, and I agree with you. I meant to ask: have you thought about a way to frame it, in which educators don't feel threatened but instead excited ? Given that, from my perspective, there's a great chance to enhance both the teaching and learning experience, as well as results
I am going to retreat from this argument because this entire topic has me questioning my planned career change away from development towards training.
If this is what people think about human teachers, what at all is the point?