This article contains a logical error that I see quite frequently, which is the belief that something being anti-X is somehow pro better alternative Y. In this

This article contains a logical error that I see quite frequently, which is the belief that something being anti-X is somehow pro better alternative Y. In this article, the author believes that writing that stimulates critical thinking and analysis would do a better job at preparing students than the current five paragraph essays that students typically write. They argue that the prevalence of text generators will force change in education from the current system to something better. The argument makes no sense when considered analytically. There is nothing special about the factual five paragraph essay that lends itself well to text generators. Rather, the fundamental issue is that humans have discovered ways of training ML algorithms that can perform almost any task that a human can do. There's nothing stopping the creation of text generators trained to write any conceivable school assignment. Cheating is only going to get easier and more sophisticated over time. This presents a serious issue that may require rethinking how students are evaluated in general.