17 points ptrhvns 2 hours ago 25 comments
zamalek 1 hour ago | parent
The knee-jerk reaction of banning AI is probably the wrong choice, people need to learn where the limits are, but I also wouldn't be able to suggest a framework where students aren't rewarded for skirting around being educated.
sheikhnbake 1 hour ago | parent
tgv 1 hour ago | parent
sheikhnbake 1 hour ago | parent
Ultimately it's the same issue across all technological tools. If the tools (AI, wikipedia, calculators, etc) can be used to complete work (or homework) without understanding the underlying fundamental concepts of the work being done, then you're hurting your education and/or professional development
lumost 1 hour ago | parent
Why would I believe that someone who can't use a mouse/computer is ready to be taught by AI?
zamalek 1 hour ago | parent
The human element is critical for teaching, in my opinion. (Great) teachers are able to smooth over some of my criticisms of education. I also believe we are very far off from it being able to do even a bad job at teaching. So I'm not suggesting that at all.
What I'm talking about is teaching students how to use it, especially when not to use it, and how to get better results from it. I don't think AI is going to replace us any time soon, but people who use AI will replace those who don't.
palmotea 59 minutes ago | parent
But you can't do that without a certain level of maturity.
> but I also wouldn't be able to suggest a framework where students aren't rewarded for skirting around being educated.
Well, then "knee-jerk" ban AI in schools... until you can suggest such a framework, and test it to show it works, and roll it out at a society-wide level.
Until then, you're just handing kids flamethrowers in a highly flammable environment, and saying "we'll just figure out the problems later."
VCFundedGenYer 41 minutes ago | parent
empath75 26 minutes ago | parent
You are not going to put the genie back into the bottle.
gedy 22 minutes ago | parent
I don't mean "AI" like generating quizzes or whatever. But people fooling themselves that LLMs are a "bicycle for the mind" with little kids are delusional.
john_strinlai 15 minutes ago | parent
i dont really think ai should be in most schooling, but calculators and computers also offload thinking. books offload memory.
dataflow 17 minutes ago | parent
Seriously? Idk about you but we weren't allowed to use calculators until long after we had already learned how to do whatever the calculator did by hand, except in cases where that was never the point of the lesson to begin with (like calculating cosines). And even then, sparingly. The reason they eventually let people use it was that it had nothing to do with the lesson being taught, and it was a waste of time at that point to make us do arithmetic by hand. Not because it suddenly became OK to turn off your brain and become lazy.
shimman 25 minutes ago | parent
mythrwy 9 minutes ago | parent
Channeled correctly it could be a fantastic educational tool. And will be in my opinion.
gruez 1 hour ago | parent
https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC963/
https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC965/
https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC839/
For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxious_Generation#Academi...
tgv 1 hour ago | parent
> For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.
While I doubt it's a boost in anything but productivity, the negatives are simply too great to ignore.
gruez 1 hour ago | parent
???
Odgers, Candice L. (March 29, 2024). "The great rewiring: is social media really behind an epidemic of teenage mental illness?". Nature. 628 (8006): 29–30. Bibcode:2024Natur.628...29O. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-00902-2. Archived from the original on September 10, 2024. Retrieved April 21, 2024.
And if you go to the article that has citations as well.
>While I doubt it's a boost in anything but productivity
If you look at the last chart it shows that students that spend the greatest amount of time using AI gets higher exam scores. It's not just "completes homework quicker".
>the negatives are simply too great to ignore.
That's... exactly what I said? I'm not sure how anyone can read "For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost" and get the impression that the negatives are fine because a tiny minority are getting better learning.
palmotea 1 hour ago | parent
Exactly. The educational system needs to be reformed to exalt and celebrate the minority boosted AI, and quickly shuttle those harmed into the trash. Our North Star needs to be AI technology and the returns of investors who support it. Everything else, including human beings, are unimportant and expendable. Tech first!
gruez 1 hour ago | parent
I'm not sure how you got the impression that not being maximally rabid against AI (ie. recognizing there are benefits) implies I'm sort of AI bro that is willing to sacrifice the education of 80% (or whatever) of kids into the metaphorical woodchipper just so the remaining can get slightly better exam scores.
throwfaraway4 1 hour ago | parent
gruez 29 minutes ago | parent
Why is proposing "alternative views" required for a critique? If we're discussing what caused diseases pre-germ theory, does that mean we can't point out the flaws in miasma theory because no "alternative views"?
>and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.
Well clearly you only read the first two sentences (or first paragraph?), because it cites multiple studies:
>These are not just our data or my opinion. Several meta-analyses and systematic reviews converge on the same message2–5. An analysis done in 72 countries shows no consistent or measurable associations between well-being and the roll-out of social media globally6. Moreover, findings from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development study, the largest long-term study of adolescent brain development in the United States, has found no evidence of drastic changes associated with digital-technology use7. Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University, is a gifted storyteller, but his tale is currently one searching for evidence.
Not to mention "selling a lot of books" isn't even the critique, it's that it offers a seductive explanation:
"... because Jonathan Haidt is telling a scary story about children’s development that many parents are primed to believe"
evklein 15 minutes ago | parent
That being said, this stuff is hard to study, and I have no doubt that things like social media and AI are bad for a developing brain even if you can't arrive at a statistically satisfying conclusion. I can tell that this shit is bad for me, and I'm a fully grown man.
scythe 7 minutes ago | parent
You see, the effect on social media on socialization has two parts. The first is the direct effect on an individual caused by their own use of social media. The second is the effect on an individual's social environment when everyone around them is on social media. The first effect is difficult but basically feasible to study. The second effect is downright wicked. So dismissing evidence that hints at the second effect as being "mere correlation that disappears under scrutiny" is not valid reasoning when your process of scrutiny focuses on the first effect.
In social science you have to accept reasoning from incomplete data. You won't always have the answers. I don't think Haidt really stands above or below his peers in any category except notoriety. Of course anyone who has worked with scientists knows to be a little suspicious of a researcher who seems to enjoy being in the public eye. But as the public eye, we're still stuck with them.
karahime 5 minutes ago | parent