Dinowitz presses on approved AI vendors and empirical evidence
Dinowitz questions why DOE approved AI vendors without empirical evidence of benefit to cognitive development, noting Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT come pre-installed on student devices. He challenges DOE to provide peer-reviewed studies supporting these tools.
There are seven tools that have, according to Local Law 35, that utilize AI, although it seems that there are many more.
According to the vendor website.
So I'm going to ask about that later, but the simple fact is that you have approved the use of AI tools, or you have approved vendors with AI tools and schools to purchase whatever tools there are.
And of course, you know, Gemini, the large language models come pre-installed.
On the devices that we give our kids, Gemini, Claude, and ChatGPT.
What evidence has the DOE used, peer-reviewed journals, empirical evidence, to demonstrate that these AI tools that you've approved as vendors are beneficial to our students and their cognitive development?