I was taught to not use calculators on exams and homework and that’s why I am able to do math in my head today.

I have recently seen GenZ perplexed by card games with addition and making change. For millennials, this is grade school stuff.

> On the other hand, I believe in the value of "learning to learn", developing media literacy, and all of the other positives gained when you research and form conclusions on things independently.

That is not going away. Learning better prompts, learning when to ignore AI, learning how to take information and turn it into something practical. These new skills will replace the old.

How many of us can still...

- Saddle a horse

- Tell time without a watch

- Sew a shirt

- Create fabric to sew a shirt

- Hunt with primitive tools

- Make fire

We can shelter children from AI, or we can teach them how to use it to further themselves. Talk to the Amish if you want to see how it works out when you forgo anything that feels too futuristic. A respectable life, sure. But would any of us reading this choose it?

It's astounding to me that people just like... always trust whatever the LLM says.

I have some friends who use ChatGPT for everything. From doing work to asking simple questions. One of my friends wanted a bio on a certain musician and asked ChatGPT. It's a little frightening he couldn't, you know, read the Wikipedia page of this musician, where all of the same information is and there are sources for this material.

My mom said she used ChatGPT to make a "capsule wardrobe" for her. I'm thinking to myself (I did not say this to her)... you can't just like look at your clothes and get rid of ones you don't wear? Why does a computer need to make this simple decision?

I'm really not sure LLMs should ever be used as a learning aid. I have never seen a reason to use them over, you know, searching something online. Or thinking of your own creative story. If someone can make a solid use case as to why LLMs are useful I would like to hear.

I think it's closer to the library example. My parents have mentioned how they had to go to a library and look for books whereas my generation can just use the internet.

Realistically my guess is that the bar for broad knowledge and ability to get to details quickly will increase. There's a lot of value in understanding multiple disciplines at a mediocre level if you can very quickly access the details when needed. Especially since learning speed tends to get slower and slower the deeper you go.

Also since every time I've needed to do something complicated, even if I knew the details it was important enough to double check my knowledge anyway.

tl;dr: I agree.

We don't teach slide rules and log tables in school anymore. Calculators and computers have created a huge metacognitive laziness for me, and I teach calculus and have a PhD in statistics. I barely remember the unit circle except for multiples of pi/4 radians. I can do it in multiples of pi/6 but I'm slower.

But guess what? I don't think I'm a worse mathematician because I don't remember these things reflexively. I might be a little slower getting the answer to a trivial problem, but I can still find a solution to a complex problem. I look up integral forms in my pocket book of integrals or on Wolfram Alpha, because even if I could derive the answer myself I don't think I'd be right 100% of the time. So metacognitive laziness has set in for me already.

But I think as long as we can figure out how to stop metacognitive laziness before it turns into full-fledged brain-rot, then we'll be okay. We'll survive as long as we can still teach students how to think critically, and figure out how to let AI assist us rather than turn us into the humans on the ship from Wall-E. I'm a little worried that we'll make some short term mistakes (like not adapting our cirriculum fast enough), but it will work out.