In December 2019, NYT published a piece about an EdTech product called Bakpax. It is a 1,500-word, feature-length article that provides neither accuracy, nor balance, nor context.
It is sourced almost entirely from company spokespeople, and the author borrows liberally from Bakpax's PR materials to exaggerate the role of AI. To keep the spotlight on AI, the article downplays the human labor from teachers that keeps the system running—such as developing and digitizing assignments.
Bakpax shut down in May 2022.
This is hardly a surprise: EdTech is an overhyped space. In the last decade, there have been hundreds of EdTech products that claim to "revolutionize" education. Despite billions of dollars in funding, many of them fail. Surprisingly, the article does not provide any context about this history.
See for yourself where the article goes wrong. The contents of the article are reproduced in their entirety on the left, and our annotations are on the right. Link to the original article.
For more details about the pitfalls, read the blog post which introduces this article here.
Copyright to the original article belongs to the New York Times, and the article can be read in its original form in full at nytimes.com. It is republished here for the purposes of critical commentary.
We re-used the code and the copyright notice above from Molly White et al.’s The Edited Latecomers’ Guide to Crypto to generate our annotated article.