alt Hacker NewsThe Risks of AI in Schools Outweigh the Benefits, Report Says
Comments
I've listened to a handful of podcasts with education academics and professionals talking about AI. They invariably come across as totally lost, like a hen inviting a fox in to help watch the eggs.
It's perhaps to be expected, as these education people are usually non-technical. But it's definitely concerning that (once again) a lack of technical and media literacy among these education types will lead to them letting (overall) unhelpful tech swarm the system.
I have two kids (sophmore in HS and a middle schooler) and in both their individual studies and when I'm helping them with homework we use AI pretty extensively now.
The one off stuff is mostly taking a picture of a math problem and asking it to walk step by step through the process. In particular this has been helpful to me as the processes and techniques have changed.
It's been useful in foreign languages as well to rapidly check work, and make corrections.
On the generative side it's fantastic for things like: give me 3 more math problems similar to this one or for generating worksheets and study guides.
As far as technological adoption goes, it's 100% that every kid knows what ChatGPT is (even maybe more than just "AI" in general). There's some very mixed feelings from the kids with it: my middle schooler was pretty creeped out by the ChatGPT voice interface for example.
So social media significantly reduces the ability to think critically. AI, if brought up too early in one's life, will reduce the ability to think at all. It makes sense, imo. Who needs to think when you have lost your ability to interact with others, can work from home, can get groceries without leaving the house, have decided to not procreate.
Doesn't matter. Every time some maniac invents some, we all need to scramble to adopt it. This is what _progress_ is. Is there's a new technology, we don't think about the consequences. We all just adopt it and use it so thoroughly that we cannot imagine living without it.
> At the drafting stage, it can help with organization, coherence, syntax, semantics, and grammar
Wait, but organizing and expressing your thoughts IS writing. If you don’t make them do the work why bother sending them to school at all.
AI has a great niche place in schools: searching the library. The rest of this seems dumb.
Regarding “Schooling itself could be less focused on what the report calls "transactional task completion" or a grade-based endgame and more focused on fostering curiosity and a desire to learn. Students will be less inclined to ask AI to do the work for them if they feel engaged by that work.”
I believe this is at the heart of the issue. If what is taught is mostly solving problems that require nothing more than rote memory or substituting values into memorized equations, then yes, students will use LLMs.
I agree some level of this brain dead work is necessary to build muscle/mental memory. However I believe if this is all they learn, they will be unprepared for university as at that level the problems poised will challenge why they are using that equation or if the problem is even solvable.
I fundamentally disagree with the policy of the US administration, as expressed by the Secretary of Education.
A1 should not be in every classroom.
Furthermore any books or teaching that does not feature medium rare as the correct cooking of a steak should be banned (and burned to well done).
The big issue I’ve faced and seen others face is the use of LLMs induced skill atrophy.
For studying, LLMs feel Like using a robot to lift weights for you at gym.
——
If people used to get cardio as a side effect of having to walk everywhere, and we were forced to think as a side effect of having to actually do the homework, then are LLMs ushering in an era of cognitive ill health ?
For what it’s worth, I spend quite a bit of effort to understand how people are using LLMs, especially non-tech people.
I suppose this article about AI is as good as any to share my thoughts on the sheer inevitability of it being integrated into every aspect of our lives. This shouldn’t be taken as a value judgement - I’m not saying it’s a good thing. But the overwhelming utility, allure, and power of it is unstoppable. Artists worried about it making them irrelevant, concerns about distinguishing truth from fiction, impact on learning and development, etc. etc. etc.: all totally valid, but the discussion and planning both collectively and individually needs to start with the assumption that there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.
Taking the first example, if you’re an artist worried about AI replacing you, you need to start your thinking from a position of AI is absolutely going to make the “I can create an image” part of your value proposition worthless. Yes, a massive fraction of what you might have been able to get paid and recognized for in the past is now utterly irrelevant. Pleading with the public to not use AI, protesting, demanding legislation, praying - none of it will stop this reality from coming to be in your lifetime, probably within a few years at most.
I see a lot of comments and articles that don’t seem to understand this at all. They think there’s some way we can slow the adoption of AI in areas we think it’s harmful, or legislate a way into a desirable future, or whatever. They’re wrong. Whatever the future holds for us, it’s one where AI will be absolutely everywhere and massively disrupt society and industry as it exists today. Start your planning from that reality or you’re going to get blindsided.
This is kind of odd.
Bloom's paradox is well known and proven in education.
AI is the first thing that can positively personalize education and instruction and provide support to instructors.
The authors seem of limited technical literacy to know that you can just train and focus only on textbooks, instead of their explorations using general models and the pitfalls that they have. Not knowing this key difference affects some of the points being made.
The intersection of having a take on technology needs some semblance of digital and technical literacy involved in the paper to help acknowledge or navigate it, or it become a potential blind spot.
It takes legitimate concerns and ironically explores them in average ways, much like an llm returns average text for vague or incomplete questions.
Nonsense
There will however be a gigantic gulf between kids who use AI to learn vs those who use AI to aid learning
Objective review of Alpha school in Austin:
I encourage everyone thinking about commenting to read the article first.
When I finally read it, I found it remarkably balanced. It cites positives and negatives, all of which agree with my experience.
> Con: AI poses a grave threat to students' cognitive development
> When kids use generative AI that tells them what the answer is … they are not thinking for themselves. They're not learning to parse truth from fiction.
None of this is controverisal. It happens without AI, too, with kids blindly copying what the teacher tells them. Impossible to disagree, though.
> Con: AI poses serious threats to social and emotional development
Yep. Just like non-AI use of social media.
> Schooling itself could be less focused on what the report calls "transactional task completion" or a grade-based endgame and more focused on fostering curiosity and a desire to learn
No sh*t. This has probably been a recommendation for decades. How could you argue against it, though?
> AI designed for use by children and teens should be less sycophantic and more "antagonistic," pushing back against preconceived notions and challenging users to reflect and evaluate.
Genius. I love this idea.
=== ETA:
I believe that explicitly teaching students how to use AI in their learning process, that the beautiful paper direct from AI is not something that will help them later, is another important ingredient. Right now we are in a time of transition, and even students who want to be successful are uncertain of what academic success will look like in 5 years, what skills will be valuable, etc.