OLDaily

Welcome to Online Learning Daily, your best source for news and commentary about learning technology, new media, and related topics. 100% human-authored

Support OLDaily. A paid subscription keeps OLDaily free and open for all. We're now at 29% of our fundraising target. A big thank you to our supporters. Click here to support OLDaily.

LLMs and performative productivity
Jim Nielsen's Notes, Jim Nielsen's Notes, 2026/06/24

---

It's as though people believe there's a learning 'off switch' (though it only exists in other people). Like this: "A junior who made a mistake is one step closer to being a senior; a junior who let an LLM make a mistake (and had the LLM fix it for them) has probably learned nothing." What would justify this conclusion, authored by John Collinsworth (Nielsen doesn't link to it, though he quotes it extensively - boo, hiss)? The junior will still learn, but will learn a different thing. Nobody 'learns nothing' - human brains don't shut off like light bulbs. What's really happening here is that we're mking a value judgement, specifically, that the lesson learned from doing it by hand is more important than the lesson learned by doing it with AI. This 

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post][Share]

Sublimation
Julian Stodd, Julian Stodd's Learning Blog, 2026/06/24

---

The first think I thought of when I read this post from Julian Stodd was simulated annealing and Boltzmann machines. Why? Because Stodd describes crystals as structures that "represent the lowest energy configuration," which is what Boltzmann machines try to do with neural nets. Stodd compares crystals to organizations, and here the metaphor needs rescuing a bit. He writes, organizations "build structure for greatest efficiency, value, predictability, replicability, and of course, ease of control, and potential for oversight and measurement," but that they are "systems trapped at one energy level, dreaming of the next." Sure, they can change state - they can melt into fluid and merge with something else, or they can sublimate into their individual atomic components (a.k.a. people). But they can change energy level, but (just as with matter and neural nets) they need to go through an annealing process, a 'hardening through fire', as it were. 'Move fast and break things' is a clumsy attempt at just such a process; in neural networks they just increase and decrease the bias (ie., sensitivity, not prejudice (that's a different meaning of 'bias')) of individual entities.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post][Share]

There Are No Instances in atproto
Dan Abra, overreacted, 2026/06/24

---

What's great about this article is that it really clearly defines the distinction between Mastodon and Bluesky, arguing that the question "where are the instances?" is a Mastodon question, and doesn't really apply to Bluesky. But I think it's misleading in three major ways. First, there are instances in Bluesky, but there are different types of them: 'atproto hosting' and 'apps'. The fact that there are so few 'atproto hosting' instance is an issue. Second, it under-describes the ATmosphere architecture by leaving out the 'personal data store' (PDS) entirely. And third, it argues that atproto is just like RSS and Google Reader. But RSS is a simple text file any person can create in a text editor (so, for that matter, is a PDS, sort of), while a 'atproto hosting' instance is a very large and complex piece of software that consumes massive resources. So too are the apps, which for some reason, must handle "the whole Atmosphere". And the whole argument raises the question: why can't we simply have PDS readers as apps? What is the whole 'atproto hosting' infrastructure buy us, except control over our identity?

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post][Share]

Down the Web Rabbit Hole With a Hammerhand
Alan Levine, CogDogBlog, 2026/06/24

---

This is a longish discussion of McLuhan's idea of a tool as an extension of the self, which then of course can be applied to media. Today, it can be applied to AI. So when we say 'AI is a tool' we're not limiting our imagination - "the ceiling of what tool literacy can imagine" - we are instead inviting ourselves to explore how a human and an AI can be (dare I say it?) a system. Now I'm not sure Levine meant his discussion exactly that way, but this is what follows from the text. And I question both McLuhan and that reading. I used to consider the question of whether a social network is an extension of the neural network (which is essentially the Siemens interpretation of connectivism). But I see them as two separate networks, with a process of communication (essentially, emergence and recognition) between them. The McLuhan argument is a nice metaphor. But it should not be taken literally.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post][Share]

We publish six to eight or so short posts every weekday linking to the best, most interesting and most important pieces of content in the field. Read more about what we cover. We also list papers and articles by Stephen Downes and his presentations from around the world.

There are many ways to read OLDaily; pick whatever works best for you:

• Read in your web browser on this web page, updated weekdays
• Receive a daily or weekly email newsletter by subscribing here
• Subscribe to the RSS feed using your favourite feed reader
• Follow @OLDaily@mastodon.social on Mastodon or elsewhere in the fediverse
• Follow @OLDaily on Bluesky
• Read OLDaily as a LinkedIn Newsletter
• Integrate the open API using the JSON feed