Question regard Text 02 below.

Text 02

Noam Chomsky: The False Promise of ChatGPT March 8, 2023

By Noam Chomsky, Ian Roberts and Jeffrey Watumull

Dr. Chomsky and Dr. Roberts are professors of linguistics. Dr. Watumull is a director of artificial intelligence at a science and technology company. 

Jorge Luis Borges once wrote that to live in a time of great peril and promise is to experience both tragedy and comedy, with “the imminence of a revelation” in understanding ourselves and the world. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. Optimism because intelligence is the means by which we solve problems. Concern because we fear that the most popular and fashionable strain of A.I. — machine learning — will degrade our science and debase our ethics by incorporating into our technology a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge. 

OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Bard and Microsoft’s Sydney are marvels of machine learning. Roughly speaking, they take huge amounts of data, search for patterns in it and become increasingly proficient at generating statistically probable outputs — such as seemingly humanlike language and thought. These programs have been hailed as the first glimmers on the horizon of artificial general intelligence — that long-prophesied moment when mechanical minds surpass human brains not only quantitatively in terms of processing speed and memory size but also qualitatively in terms of intellectual insight, artistic creativity and every other distinctively human faculty.

That day may come, but its dawn is not yet breaking, contrary to what can be read in hyperbolic headlines and reckoned by injudicious investments. The Borgesian revelation of understanding has not and will not — and, we submit, cannot — occur if machine learning programs like ChatGPT continue to dominate the field of A.I. However useful these programs may be in some narrow domains (they can be helpful in computer programming, for example, or in suggesting rhymes for light verse), we know from the science of linguistics and the philosophy of knowledge that they differ profoundly from how humans reason and use language. These differences place significant limitations on what these programs can do, encoding them with ineradicable defects. (…)  

Fragment from https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/08/opinion/noam-chomsky-chatgpt-ai.html - accessed on November 23rd, 2023. 

Leia o texto a seguir para responder à questão.

    When the covid-19 pandemic forced in-person classroom instruction to go virtual, students suddenly needed to have their own laptops or tablets in order to interact with teachers and complete assignments. In the United States (U.S.), federal pandemic funding was used to address the digital divide – the gap between students and families who had their own tablets, computers and high-speed internet, and those who did not.

    While most schools resumed in-person classes by 2021, many of them continued to rely heavily on online platforms and apps to help their students do their work. Today, however, more and more U.S. schools are trying to establish clearer expectations about when technology should be used, for what purpose and at what ages. Instead of treating screens as the default tool for instruction, some schools are directing teachers to use laptops only when the technology adds clear instructional value.

    In fact, the distinction between passive consumption and purposeful use is increasingly shaping school policy. Updated policies also reflect an emerging emphasis on age-appropriate screen use. For older students, technology may remain central to learning, particularly when students are using it to program, analyze data, model complex systems and critically evaluate information. Younger children, meanwhile, should have sufficient opportunities for play, conversation, movement and hands-on, “unplugged” learning, without screens.

    The issue is not whether students spend more or less time using technology. It is whether the time they spend with technology helps them build understanding, solve problems, think critically and make informed decisions. The technology itself is not what improves learning. What matters is how teachers use it to engage students in deeper thinking.

(Janice Mak. https://theconversation.com, 30.07.2026. Adaptado)