STOP THE HYPOCRISY. STOP BLOCKING OUR FUTURE.
I AM 17 AND YOU ARE TRYING TO BAN MY FUTURE.
Done being lectured by people who don't understand the world they live in.
Done being judged by a system frozen somewhere between 1995 and a nostalgia I don't recognize.
Done with hypocrisy served with authority and a tone of moral superiority.
So I am not complaining anymore. I am making accusations.
Who are you to ban AI for me?
You, the teacher who scolds me for using ChatGPT on an essay.
You, who cannot get in your car in the morning without turning on Waze.
You, who without GPS would not make it to school — because you have no idea what street you're on, because for ten years an algorithm has been deciding your route, your departure time, and your detours.
If I took your phone and handed you a printed map, you would not get anywhere. Admit that. Then we can talk about technology dependency.
You, the parent who lectures me about real books and the importance of reading on paper. When did you last walk into a library? Do you even know where the nearest one is? Go there. Ask for the book that came out last week. You will find out it's not there, that it needs to be ordered, that it takes months, that it needs to be reserved, that someone else might have it on loan. Meanwhile you already finished it on your Kindle last night, in bed, with the brightness turned all the way down so you wouldn't wake anyone. And now you have the nerve to turn yourself into an apostle of the printed word in front of me? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
You, the teacher who cannot accept that I used AI to structure an essay. But you wrote your semester report using a downloaded template, ran it through autocorrect, submitted it through the school's digital platform and ordered classroom supplies online in three minutes, next-day delivery. And I am the problem.
You, who cook every day with your smart multicooker — the one with saved recipes, automatic programs, and the app on your phone. If I unplugged it and asked you to make something simple from memory, on the stove, without looking anything up — you would burn a fried egg because you forgot to put oil in the pan first. And yet you have the audacity to tell me that technology is making us incompetent.
The problem is not that you use technology. The problem is that you rely on it every day, depend on it, build your life around it — and still deny us the right to use it, simply because you don’t control it.
Where your anger really comes from
Let's be honest.
Your reaction to AI has nothing to do with educational principles. It has nothing to do with genuine concern for us. It has nothing to do with wisdom.
It comes from fear. Fear that you don't understand what is happening. Fear that we already know how to use something you haven't figured out yet. Fear that the authority you hold over us disappears the moment you no longer control the information.
You grew up in a system where the best student was the one who memorized the most. Grades didn't measure intelligence — they measured memory. Or how much your parents could pay for private tutoring. That's it. And now that system has shaped you into adults who believe memorization is the same thing as learning, and that anything beyond that paradigm is a threat.
It is not a threat. You are simply outdated. And that is not an insult. It is a diagnosis.
The problem is that an untreated diagnosis gets worse. And you are refusing the treatment.
You are not afraid of AI.
You are afraid of the moment you stop being indispensable.
What is the rest of the world doing while you're arguing with us?
Estonia — a country with a smaller population than Bucharest — launched a national program in September 2025 called AI Leap. Twenty thousand high school students and three thousand teachers received free access to ChatGPT Edu, the educational version built together with OpenAI and Anthropic. The President of Estonia said it plainly: artificial intelligence has permanently changed the world and education must adapt. No debate. No bans. Action.
UNESCO — not some random blog, but the United Nations organization for education — published the first global guidance on generative AI in education and research, with clear recommendations for governments and schools. Not prohibition. Responsible integration.
Harvard, Oxford, and London Business School have already integrated AI into their educational platforms with clear policies and dedicated training for students and faculty.
Romania is still holding meetings about whether it should be allowed.
Meanwhile, a student in Tallinn is using ChatGPT today to learn more effectively, guided by teachers trained to integrate technology. And I get a zero for doing the exact same thing without asking permission from a system that doesn't even know what it wants.
While they implement, we debate. While they train teachers, we punish students. While they build the future, we sanction the present.
The laziness myth — and the truth nobody is saying
I hear it constantly: AI will make students lazy.
It is the biggest lie you keep repeating.
Without AI, I do one thing in three hours. With AI, I do ten things in three hours — but each of them needs to be checked, validated, corrected, critically evaluated, and reformulated. My brain is not resting. It is working faster and at more levels than your educational system has ever demanded of me.
Because AI does not think for me. It gives me things I have to evaluate. It generates answers I have to verify. It proposes solutions I have to question.
If you know nothing, AI doesn't help you — it misleads you and you won't even notice. If you know your subject, AI turns you into someone who does in three hours what others do in three days.
That is exactly what school should be building: people who know how to use the tools of their time with judgment — not people who memorize the capitals of African countries for a Friday test.
It doesn’t make us lazy. It forces us to move faster than the system that evaluates us.
What happens if you change nothing
AI is already in medicine — diagnosing, interpreting test results, assisting surgeons. It is in law — analyzing contracts and case files in seconds. It is in transport, finance, public administration, architecture, journalism.
This is not a future vision. This is the present we are already living in.
And I, who will enter the job market in a few years, need to be prepared for this reality. Not for the one in your 2003 textbooks.
If you keep banning and blaming, you are not producing students protected from technology. You are producing students unprepared for a world where technology is already everywhere. That is not protection. That is abandonment.
This is not a future problem. It is a gap that has already begun.
You are not protecting us. You are limiting us.
Solutions — because I'm not just here to accuse
I don't only come with accusations. I come with answers. Because that is what separates someone who complains from someone who actually wants to change something.
If you insist on stopping us, then do it properly — with better rules, not bigger fear.
Solution 1: AI becomes a mandatory subject in grades 7 through 12
Not optional. Not elective. Mandatory.
Not a class where someone vaguely explains what a robot is. A real class, with structure, where students learn how AI works, what its limits are, how to prompt it correctly, how to verify its outputs, how to recognize when it is wrong or hallucinating. How to use it as a tool — not as a replacement for thinking.
Finland does this. Estonia does this. Singapore does this. The United Arab Emirates introduced AI into their curriculum in 2019, starting from grade one.
Romania doesn't need to invent anything. It just needs to have the courage to decide.
Solution 2: "But why do YOU think that?" — the most important question a teacher can ask
Everyone completes their assignment using AI. Everyone brings the result. And then the teacher doesn't ask "what did you write?" — but asks every single student, one by one: "Why do you believe this? Did you verify it? Do you agree with what the AI generated, or not? What would you change?"
Suddenly AI is no longer a shortcut. It becomes a starting point for a real discussion — one where every student has to think independently, argue a position, contradict or confirm. That is what school should be: not a place where you reproduce, but a place where you think.
This does not require a national reform. It does not require money. It does not require ministerial approval. It requires one thing only: a teacher who understands that their role is no longer to be the source of information, but the person who challenges thinking beyond it.
That is 21st century pedagogy. And it costs nothing.
Solution 3: Real training for teachers — not just a three-hour course per year
We all know what "digital training" means in the Romanian system: a PDF skimmed in a hurry, a checkbox in a register, a printed certificate. Done, you are "digitally trained."
No. That is not training. That is a bad joke.
Real training means practical workshops where teachers actually work with AI tools — not hear about them, but use them. It means communities of teachers sharing experiences, lessons built with AI, adapted assessment methods. It means mentoring from younger colleagues or from students themselves — because sometimes the fastest way for a teacher to learn is to ask a sixteen-year-old who has been using these tools for two years.
The model exists. Estonia implemented it exactly this way: teachers learned AI Leap together with students, in joint sessions, without hierarchy. The result was that teachers stopped feeling threatened by technology and started feeling curious about it.
Curiosity is the only real antidote to fear.
Solution 4: Evaluation must measure thinking, not memory
If a student can find any factual information in three seconds on any connected device, then a test measuring how well they memorized that information measures nothing relevant.
Assessment needs to be rebuilt around questions AI cannot answer alone: What do you think? Why? How did you reach that conclusion? What would you do differently? What do you still not understand?
This shift does not reduce rigor. It increases it. Because arguing your own idea is far harder than reproducing a paragraph from a textbook.
Countries like Finland and Denmark have been evaluating through projects, presentations, and demonstrated critical thinking for years — not multiple choice tests. Their results in international PISA rankings speak for themselves.
We still test with four-option grids, one correct answer. And then wonder why we are not producing thinkers.
I am Nicholas Carstoiu, student, competitive athlete, youth activist involved in mental health projects, and member of the Children's Board of Romania supported by UNICEF — and I have run out of patience for a system that fears the future and hides behind authority. The solutions exist. They are not secrets. They are not expensive. They are not impossible. What is missing is not information. It is the courage to act. The future will not wait for you. And we have already started moving without you.
The difference is — we are no longer asking for permission.
SOURCES:
UNESCO — Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research:
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research
UNESCO — AI and Education: Guidance for Policy-Makers:
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-and-education-guidance-policy-makers
Estonia — National AI Leap 2025 Programme (e-Estonia):
https://e-estonia.com/ai-leap-2025-estonia-sets-ai-standard-in-education/
Estonia and OpenAI — National Agreement for Schools:
https://openai.com/index/estonia-schools-and-chatgpt/
Estonia — AI Leap Official Data (Education Estonia):
https://www.educationestonia.org/estonia-launches-ai-leap-2025-to-transform-education/
AM 17 ANI SI VOI INCERCATI SA-MI INTERZICETI VIITORUL.
M-am saturat sa fiu lecturat de oameni care nu inteleg lumea in care traiesc.
M-am saturat sa fiu judecat de un sistem care a ramas blocat undeva intre 1995 si o nostalgie pe care nu o inteleg.
M-am saturat de ipocrizie servita cu autoritate si cu ton de superioritate morala.
Asa ca nu ma mai plang. Acuz.
Cine esti tu sa-mi interzici mie AI-ul?
Tu, profesorul care ma certi ca am folosit ChatGPT la un referat.
Tu, care dimineata nu poti sa te urci in masina fara sa pornesti Waze.
Tu, care fara GPS nu ai ajunge la scoala — pentru ca habar nu ai pe ce strada esti, pentru ca de zece ani un algoritm decide pentru tine drumul, ora de plecare si alternativele in caz de accident.
Daca ti-as lua telefonul si ti-as da o harta tiparita, n-ai ajunge nicaieri. Recunoaste asta si apoi vorbim despre dependenta de tehnologie.
Tu, parintele care imi tine discursuri despre cartile adevarate si despre cat de important este sa citesti pe hartie. Cand ai intrat ultima data intr-o biblioteca? Stii unde este cea mai apropiata de tine? Du-te acolo. Cere cartea lansata saptamana trecuta. O sa afli ca nu exista, ca trebuie comandata, ca dureaza luni de zile, ca trebuie rezervata, ca poate altcineva o are imprumutata. Intre timp tu ai terminat-o deja pe Kindle, ieri noapte, in pat, cu luminozitatea data jos. Si acum ai curajul sa te transformi in apostol al tiparului in fata mea? Cata ipocrizie intr-un singur om.
Tu, doamna profesoara care nu poti accepta ca am folosit AI sa structurez un eseu. Dar ti-ai scris raportul semestrial cu un template downloadat, ai verificat textul cu corectorul automat, ai trimis totul pe platforma digitala si ai comandat rechizitele clasei online, in trei minute, cu livrare a doua zi. Si eu sunt problema.
Tu, care gatesti zilnic cu multicookerul inteligent — cel cu retete salvate, cu programe automate, cu aplicatie pe telefon. Daca ti-as lua gadgetul din priza si ti-as cere sa faci o mancare simpla, din memorie, pe aragaz, fara instructiuni online — ai face niste oua prajite arse, pentru ca ai uitat ca trebuie sa pui ulei mai intai. Si totusi ai curajul sa imi spui mie ca tehnologia ne face incompetenti.
Problema nu este ca folositi tehnologia. Problema este ca o folositi zilnic, va bazati pe ea, depindeti de ea — dar ne interziceti noua exact acelasi lucru, pentru ca nu il controlati.
De unde vine cu adevarat furia voastra
Sa fim seriosi.
Reactia voastra fata de AI nu vine din principii pedagogice. Nu vine din grija pentru noi. Nu vine din intelepciune.
Vine din frica. Frica ca nu intelegeti ce se intampla. Frica ca noi stim deja sa folosim ceva pe care voi nu il stapaniti. Frica ca autoritatea pe care o aveti asupra noastra dispare in momentul in care nu mai detineti monopolul informatiei.
Voi ati crescut intr-un sistem in care cel mai bun elev era cel care memora cel mai mult. Calificativele nu masurau inteligenta, masurau memoria. Sau bugetul parintilor pentru meditatii. Atat. Iar acum acel sistem v-a format ca adulti — adulti care cred ca memorarea este sinonima cu invatatul si ca tot ce depaseste aceasta paradigma este o amenintare.
Nu este o amenintare. Sunteti pur si simplu depasiti. Si asta nu este o insulta. Este un diagnostic.
Problema este ca un diagnostic netratat se agraveaza. Si voi refuzati tratamentul.
Nu va este frica de AI.
Va este frica de momentul in care nu mai sunteti indispensabili.
Ce face restul lumii cat voi ne certati pe noi
Estonia — o tara mai mica decat judetul Suceava ca populatie — a lansat in septembrie 2025 programul national AI Leap. 20.000 de elevi de liceu si 3.000 de profesori au primit acces gratuit la ChatGPT Edu, versiunea educationala creata impreuna cu OpenAI si Anthropic. Presedintele Estoniei a spus simplu: inteligenta artificiala a schimbat permanent lumea si educatia trebuie sa se adapteze. Fara dezbatere. Fara interdictii. Actiune.
UNESCO a publicat primul ghid global pentru utilizarea AI in educatie si cercetare. Nu interzicere. Integrare responsabila, cu cadru etic si cu instruire pentru profesori.
Harvard, Oxford, London Business School au integrat deja AI in platformele lor educationale cu politici clare.
Romania inca tine sedinte despre daca ar trebui sau nu sa fie permis.
Intre timp, un elev din Tallinn foloseste azi ChatGPT sa invete mai eficient, ghidat de profesori instruiti sa integreze tehnologia. Iar eu primesc un zero pentru ca am indraznit sa fac acelasi lucru fara sa ii cer voie unui sistem care nu stie nici el ce vrea.
In timp ce ei implementeaza, noi dezbatem. In timp ce ei formeaza profesori, noi interzicem elevi. In timp ce ei construiesc viitorul, noi sanctionam prezentul.
Mitul lenei si adevarul pe care nu il spune nimeni
Aud tot timpul: AI-ul va face lenesi.
Este cea mai mare minciuna pe care o perpetuati.
Fara AI, fac un lucru in trei ore. Cu AI, fac zece lucruri in trei ore — dar fiecare dintre ele trebuie verificat, validat, corectat, gandit critic, reformulat. Creierul meu nu se odihneste. Lucreaza la o viteza si la o intensitate pe care sistemul vostru de educatie nu mi-a cerut-o niciodata.
Pentru ca AI-ul nu gandeste pentru mine. Imi pune intrebari la care trebuie sa stiu sa raspund. Genereaza variante pe care trebuie sa le evaluez. Propune solutii pe care trebuie sa le verific.
Daca nu stii nimic, AI-ul nu te ajuta — te pacaleste si tu nu iti dai seama. Daca stii, AI-ul te transforma intr-un om care face in trei ore cat altii fac in trei zile.
Nu ne face mai lenesi. Ne forteaza sa devenim mai rapizi decat sistemul care ne evalueaza.
Exact asta ar trebui sa formeze scoala: oameni care stiu sa foloseasca instrumentele timpului lor cu discernamant, nu oameni care memoreaza capitalele din Africa pentru un test de vineri.
Ce urmeaza daca nu schimbati nimic
AI-ul este deja in medicina — diagnosticheaza, interpreteaza analize, asista chirurgi. Este in juridic — analizeaza contracte si dosare in secunde. Este in transport, in finante, in administratie publica, in arhitectura, in jurnalism.
Nu este o viziune din viitor. Este prezentul.
Iar eu, care intru pe piata muncii in cativa ani, am nevoie sa fiu pregatit pentru aceasta realitate. Nu pentru cea din manualele voastre din 2003.
Daca continuati sa interziceti si sa blamati, nu produceti elevi protejati de tehnologie. Produceti elevi nepregatiti pentru o lume in care tehnologia este deja peste tot. Iar asta nu este protectie. Este abandon.
Nu este o problema de viitor. Este o problema de decalaj care deja a inceput.
Ce cer — si este simplu
Nu cer haos. Nu cer sa folosim AI fara nicio regula.
Cer reguli inteligente, nu interdictii din frica. Cer profesori instruiti sa integreze AI in lectii, nu sa il demonizeze. Cer un sistem care sa evalueze gandirea, nu memorarea. Cer onestitate — sa recunoasteti ca voi insiva folositi zilnic exact ce ne interziceti noua.
Ori invatam sa folosim AI in scoala, cu ghidaj si responsabilitate — ori il folosim acasa, singuri, fara niciun ghidaj.
Alegeti voi. Dar sa stiti ca noi nu asteptam.
Nu ne protejati. Ne limitati.
Daca totusi vreti sa schimbati ceva — iata cum
Nu vin doar cu acuzatii. Vin si cu raspunsuri. Pentru ca asta face diferenta dintre cineva care se plange si cineva care vrea sa schimbe ceva.
Daca tot vreti sa ne opriti, atunci opriti-ne corect. Cu reguli mai bune decat avem acum, nu cu frica mai mare decat avem deja.
Solutia 1: AI devine materie obligatorie in clasele VII-XII
Nu optional. Nu la alegere. Obligatoriu.
Nu o ora in care se explica vag ce este un robot. O ora reala, cu structura, in care elevii invata cum functioneaza AI-ul, care ii sunt limitele, cum il interogam corect, cum verificam ce ne da, cum recunoastem o eroare sau o halucinatie a modelului. Cum il folosim ca instrument, nu ca substitut al gandirii.
Finlanda face asta. Estonia face asta. Singapore face asta. Emiratele Arabe Unite au introdus AI in curriculum inca din 2019, din clasa I.
Romania are timp sa se uite si sa copieze ce a functionat deja. Nu trebuie sa inventeze nimic. Trebuie doar sa aiba curajul sa decida.
Solutia 2: "Tu de ce crezi asta?" — cea mai importanta intrebare pe care un profesor o poate pune
Imaginati-va urmatoarea ora de clasa:
Toata lumea face tema cu AI. Toata lumea aduce rezultatul. Si apoi profesorul nu intreaba "ce ai scris?" ci intreaba fiecare elev, pe rand: "Tu de ce crezi asta? Tu ai verificat asta? Tu esti de acord cu ce a generat AI-ul sau nu?"
Brusc, AI-ul nu mai este o scurtatura. Devine un punct de plecare pentru o discutie reala, in care fiecare elev trebuie sa gandeasca independent, sa argumenteze, sa contrazica sau sa confirme. Tocmai asta ar trebui sa fie scoala: nu un loc in care reproduci, ci un loc in care gandesti.
Aceasta nu necesita o reforma nationala. Nu necesita bani. Nu necesita aprobare de la minister. Necesita un singur lucru: un profesor care intelege ca rolul lui nu mai este sa fie sursa informatiei, ci sa fie cel care provoaca gandirea dincolo de ea.
Asta este pedagogia secolului XXI. Si nu costa nimic.
Solutia 3: Formare reala pentru profesori — nu un curs de trei ore pe an
Stim cu totii ce inseamna "formare" in sistemul romanesc: un PDF citit in graba, o bifuta intr-un registru, o adeverinta tiparita. Gata, esti "format digital".
Nu. Asta nu este formare. Este o gluma proasta.
Formarea reala inseamna workshopuri practice, in care profesorii lucreaza efectiv cu instrumente AI — nu aud despre ele, ci le folosesc. Inseamna comunitati de profesori care isi impartasesc experiente, lectii construite cu AI, metode de evaluare adaptate. Inseamna mentorat din partea colegilor mai tineri sau a elevilor insisi — pentru ca uneori cel mai rapid mod in care un profesor poate invata este sa ceara ajutorul unui elev de 16 ani care foloseste aceste instrumente de doi ani.
Modelul exista. Estonia l-a implementat exact asa: profesorii au invatat AI Leap impreuna cu studentii, in sesiuni comune, fara ierarhie. Rezultatul a fost ca profesorii nu s-au mai simtit amenintati de tehnologie, ci curioasi fata de ea.
Curiozitatea este singurul antidot real impotriva fricii.
Solutia 4: Evaluarea trebuie sa masoare gandirea, nu memoria
Daca un elev poate gasi orice informatie factuala in trei secunde pe orice dispozitiv, atunci testul care masoara cat de bine a memorat acea informatie nu masoara nimic relevant.
Evaluarea trebuie restructurata in jurul unor intrebari la care AI-ul nu poate raspunde singur: Ce crezi tu? De ce? Cum ai ajuns la concluzia asta? Ce ai face diferit? Ce nu intelegi inca?
Aceasta schimbare nu elimina rigoarea. O creste. Pentru ca este mult mai greu sa argumentezi o idee proprie decat sa reproduci un paragraf dintr-un manual.
Tari precum Finlanda si Danemarca evalueaza de ani de zile prin proiecte, prezentari si gandire critica demonstrata, nu prin teste grila. Rezultatele lor in clasamentele internationale PISA vorbesc singure.
Noi evaluam inca cu grile cu patru variante, dintre care una este corecta. Si ne miram ca nu formam ganditori.
Sunt Nicholas Carstoiu, elev, sportiv de performanta, activist pentru tineri implicat in proiecte de sanatate mentala, membru al Boardului Copiilor din Romania sustinut de UNICEF — si nu mai am rabdare pentru un sistem care se teme de viitor si se ascunde in spatele autoritatii. Solutiile exista. Nu sunt secrete. Nu sunt scumpe. Nu sunt imposibile. Ceea ce lipseste nu este informatia. Este curajul de a actiona. Viitorul nu va astepta dupa voi. Iar noi am inceput deja sa mergem fara voi.
Diferenta este ca noi nu mai cerem voie.
SURSE:
UNESCO — Ghid pentru AI generativa in educatie si cercetare:
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/guidance-generative-ai-education-and-research
UNESCO — AI si educatia: ghid pentru factorii de decizie:
https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/ai-and-education-guidance-policy-makers
Estonia — Programul national AI Leap 2025:
https://e-estonia.com/ai-leap-2025-estonia-sets-ai-standard-in-education/
Estonia si OpenAI — acord national pentru scoli:
https://openai.com/index/estonia-schools-and-chatgpt/
Estonia — AI Leap, date oficiale Education Estonia:
https://www.educationestonia.org/estonia-launches-ai-leap-2025-to-transform-education/
Originally published on LinkedIn.Publicat inițial pe LinkedIn.
