Heh, when Texas dictates what gets into schoolbooks.

"What happened between 1850 and 1960 regarding civil rights"

A: "Oh nothing, it was great for everyone"

History is a mess here. That said it would be nice if it were incorporated with written texts, lessons, and the AI so you can bounce questions off of it.

Is there a name for this fallacy (is it a fallacy?). I feel like we see the same issue with self driving cars crash rates. People are hesitant to adopt because they aren't perfect, but ignore that it's better than the status quo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy maybe?

Colloquially: "Don't let perfection stand in the way of greatness."

I'll don't think it's a fallacy. People are more predictable and can be accountable for their actions, and even admit ignorance, eg answering "I don't know ask someone else".

It's worth discussing if we want AIs replacing them - maybe the scalability is better, but these are usually worse.

> People are more predictable and can be accountable for their actions...

I would disagree. I think that at this stage, ChatGPT is very predictable, and we have excellent statistics on how likely it is to respond correctly to a particular type of question. I would have much less predictability about any particular human teacher, who might have an especially good or bad day.

Also, ChatGPT can be much more accountable, in the sense that when issues pop up, a filter can be implemented to prevent these particular issues for arising again. I don't see how humans are better in this regard - even if they are "accountable" in some vague sense, it can take many months to get rid of an underperforming teacher, and can take decades to change something across the system.