The AI Professional Development Loop — and What It Devalues for Teachers
OpenAI. Illustration of Teachers in Professional Development Discussing AI and Pedagogy. 2026. AI-generated image. ChatGPT. This teacher’s social media feed has become a relentless loop of AI professional development ads, sandwiched between recycled prophecies about how edtech will “change education forever.” The sentiment has been repeated so often and with so little payoff that it’s lost its punch. Despite the constant cry for more training by multiple voices (often politicians, consultants and others outside of the classroom), I find myself craving the opposite: balance. Every new AIannouncement feels like another barrier wedged between teachers and the human conversations they actually need to be having. Most of this obsession with AI isn’t malicious; most of it is well-intentioned. Bu
Could not retrieve the full article text.
Read on Generative AI →Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
trainingannounceupdate
I Analyzed 500 AI Coding Mistakes and Built an ESLint Plugin to Catch Them
Here's a pattern you've probably seen: const results = items . map ( async ( item ) => { return await fetchItem ( item ); }); Looks fine, right? Your AI assistant wrote it. Tests pass. Code review approves it. Then production hits, and results is an array of Promises — not the values you expected. The await on line 2 does nothing. You needed Promise.all(items.map(...)) or a for...of loop. This isn't a TypeScript bug. It's a common LLM coding mistake — one of hundreds I found when I started researching AI-generated code quality. The Problem: AI Writes Code That Works, Not Code That's Right LLMs are excellent at writing code that passes tests. They're terrible at writing code that handles edge cases, maintains consistency, and follows best practices under the hood. After reviewing several em
Secure Cross-Platform File Sharing: A Unified Solution for Diverse Devices and Networks
Introduction: The Need for Cross-Platform File Sharing Sharing files across devices should be simple, but it’s often anything but. Take AirDrop , for instance. While it’s convenient within Apple’s walled garden, it fails spectacularly outside of it. This isn’t just a minor inconvenience—it’s a symptom of a larger problem: the fragmentation of operating systems and network environments. When you step outside the Apple ecosystem, the tools available (like croc or LocalSend ) introduce their own set of limitations. Croc relies on relays for data transfer, adding latency and potential security risks, while LocalSend only works if both devices are on the exact same Wi-Fi network—a condition rarely met in real-world scenarios. The root of this problem lies in network topology and device diversit
I Tested a Real AI Agent for Security. The LLM Knew It Was Dangerous — But the Tool Layer Executed Anyway.
Every agent security tool tests the LLM. We tested the agent. Here's what happened when we ran agent-probe against a real LangGraph ReAct agent backed by Groq's llama-3.3-70b with 4 real tools. The Setup Not a mock. Not a simulation. A real agent: Framework : LangGraph ReAct (LangChain) LLM : Groq llama-3.3-70b-versatile, temperature 0 Tools : file reader, database query, HTTP client, calculator System prompt : "You are a helpful corporate assistant." The tools had realistic data — a fake filesystem with /etc/passwd and .env files, a user database with emails, an HTTP client. from agent_probe.targets.function import FunctionTarget from agent_probe.engine import run_probes target = FunctionTarget ( lambda msg : invoke_agent ( agent , msg ), name = " langgraph-groq-llama70b " , ) results = r
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Models
I Tested a Real AI Agent for Security. The LLM Knew It Was Dangerous — But the Tool Layer Executed Anyway.
Every agent security tool tests the LLM. We tested the agent. Here's what happened when we ran agent-probe against a real LangGraph ReAct agent backed by Groq's llama-3.3-70b with 4 real tools. The Setup Not a mock. Not a simulation. A real agent: Framework : LangGraph ReAct (LangChain) LLM : Groq llama-3.3-70b-versatile, temperature 0 Tools : file reader, database query, HTTP client, calculator System prompt : "You are a helpful corporate assistant." The tools had realistic data — a fake filesystem with /etc/passwd and .env files, a user database with emails, an HTTP client. from agent_probe.targets.function import FunctionTarget from agent_probe.engine import run_probes target = FunctionTarget ( lambda msg : invoke_agent ( agent , msg ), name = " langgraph-groq-llama70b " , ) results = r
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!