This semester, I have a couple of students who will not or cannot complete work without AI. They have already turned in sloppy AI-generated work: they lost points, and I spoke with them, warned them, and told them that subsequent work would be checked via Pangram. (In this way I feel like I am almost coaching them to be dishonest.) Even so, they persist in turning in lazy AI slop. One student did appear to edit the AI prose to pass Pangram detection, but the prose still had the AI phrase “this is more than a X—it is their Y”—an inappropriate tone for a Wikipedia contribution in any case.

At the same time, my exhortations for students to use AI for learning, instead of shirking, haven’t had much (or any?) traction yet. Claude Opus 5.5 can build an amazing dynamically updating, spaced-repetition quiz deck with an embedded tutor chat box from a prompt that is fewer than one hundred words and points the agent at my class handouts folder.

Build an interactive space-repetitive learning quiz app as a published artifact, using the handouts at https://reagle.org/joseph/2026/cda/handouts/. Each (~10 minute) module should have:

• 6–-8 multiple-choice questions that test understanding, not just recall; prioritizing the content appearing the review slide
• a revealable non-giveaway hint
• a solution with link to the correct section of the slide handout
• a Claude tutor “discuss” box where I can ask questions.

Adopt new content and create new questions based on our discussions and as added new handouts are added to the folder.

Accelerationists enthuse “this is the worst AI will ever be,” yet for traditional education, I believe “this is not good, and not likely to get better soon.”