This whole thread up & down is important and insightful.
I want to add one linguistic point here:
L'historien Carlo Ginzburg est mort à 87 ans. Pionnier de la micro-histoire, il a fait de la rencontre avec l’inattendu le moteur de sa méthode et de son écriture. Pour (re)découvrir son parcours et sa pensée, écoutez l'entretien qu’il nous avait accordé en 2025.
➡️ https://l.franceculture.fr/cPy
I've been reviewing professional orgs' guidelines/frameworks, and this one hits so many points that others sorely miss. The attempt to actually define "AI Literacy" alone sets this apart from, say, the AHA guidelines last year.
"What specific AI tool or model are you using, and what is its intended purpose? How does its design—its architecture, training data, and versioning—affect what it can (and cannot) do?"
These are core questions that too many "we used a commercial AI, here's what we found" papers fail to address.
The point of having students do peer review is not to fix the essay, it’s to give the students a concrete experience of delivering their ideas to an audience and being in community caring about their compositional choices.