Whilst the hype continues with "generative text transformation", the initial uses of the technology by other teachers have been observed with interest. Some use it to generate lessons. Yawn (see below). What has been useful, is the ability to create LaTeX documents via these services. For example, a request to generate an enumerated list of questions about (un-)balanced chemical equations, was convenient. There were errors, but the time saved to write the various LaTeX commands was worth it:
here's an example of LaTeX code for 50 balanced chemical equations
using the `mhchem` and `siunitx` packages:
```latex
\documentclass{article}
\usepackage[version=4]{mhchem}
\usepackage{siunitx}
\begin{document}
\begin{enumerate}
\item \ce{H2 + O2 -> H2O}
\item \ce{NaCl -> Na+ + Cl-}
\item \ce{CaCO3 -> CaO + CO2}
\item \ce{2H2 + O2 -> 2H2O}
\item \ce{C6H12O6 -> 2C2H5OH + 2CO2}
...
Another useful application of the technology has been the creation of LaTeX code to emulate a simple form received in pdf, via the tool 'pdftotext' and the option '-layout'. It was a surprise that when the text output was copied into the 'gpt text field, the resultant LaTeX could be compiled. Again, some relatively minor changes for the local LaTeX distribution, but still beneficial in the time saved.
The oft-ignored irony of "free, easy" access to information, is that expert subject knowledge is even more valuable in order to identify the rubbish information when it emerges.
A familiar scene. Move to a new school. Familiarise with the resources available, but become dissatisfied. Previous resources are remembered, but they are on some (removable) hard-drive somewhere. Is it worth retrieval, for the one or few students that may appreciate your superior content? Er, no. More often than not, previous time is consumed at weekend and/or evening to review said resources, only to conclude: "why was this stuff saved?" ;)
Teacher shortages and the prevalence of part-time teachers, can make the shared teach load for some classes to be sub-optimal. People are different so the styles of pedagogy will differ for the same class. The sciences are difficult enough, without this additional factor. It is a "short-term fix" because the experience from the perspective of the child, is unlikely to develop an interest to study the sciences further. Post-16 level study (where the sciences begin to come alive) become a less likely scenario, blighted by a poor experience in those early formative secondary school years. The cycle of the myth pseudo-shortage of sciences teachers, then continues in the long-term.