I’m sure there are really unique and great ways to utilize AI in the educational setting, however, young children should not be the Guinea pigs. Prove that certain things are beneficial, not just think they are, and then implement with oversight. People need to stop overthinking everything and just take one step at a time, evaluate and then take another step.
If anything, it sounds like (you think that) they need to be more thoughtful and not just throw every new technology and technique at the kids and see if it works.
I’m not trying to nitpick, but slow down, think, and measure before acting seems like clearer advice. Really what you are fighting is assuming that new technology is useful and just trying out various ad hoc ways to discover how to realize that usefulness.
Who is the authoritative voice of reason for the effectiveness of any educational approach or tool? It takes years to sort things out and by then the approach of the day has moved on. Education is an area where everybody feels like they are an expert. In the US, we can't agree on the simplest things impacting our children.
The job of the school is to teach and prepare the young children. If kids use things that could be dangerous outside of school, then that is the parents responsibility. Meanwhile, the school should do what they deem as most appropriate to ensure quality education.
It is quite common outside of the US. Actually I think other places are generally better with binge drinking in the late teenage years, but one of the few ways America really did seem to have a lead over the rest of the world in personal health was that we were able to cut down on teen smoking for a while. Then vaping got invented and I’m sure it’s a huge problem again.
yeah AI companies are pretty vehemently set on making kids dumb & dependent on their products for life. a school district doesn't have the power or bankroll to oppose them. what arrogance lol
Imagine saying this about a graphing calculator, because that is essentially what the LLM is for knowledge work. You can either be dumb and spell 8008135 or you can get an education and make it sing. They definitely want us dependent on their products for life, because that's what capitalism is, but dumb kids won't be the profitable ones.
A graphing calculator for all knowledge work is just a(n artificial) brain. It’s not hard to see how offloading brain work to another brain makes your brain less powerful.
I’m not saying you can’t be intelligent in a world of LLMs but people who use the calculator analogy underscore the fact that the LLM isn’t just eliminating the drudgery of one subdomain of mechanical problem solving — every problem is one an LLM can provide and answer for, including what you should learn, what problems you should solve, what your next conversation with the LLM should be about. So they do pose at least a threat of people truly offloading indefinite amounts of their own critical thinking to models, and there’s also danger that such people will in general still be competent enough often enough (due to LLM competence) that they are hard to screen out of key decision making roles or even from highly profitable roles.
Yet there were times where I was not allowed to use a graphing calculator in school tests (mid 00's). Honestly. if you are completely reliant on a graphing calc in an AP calculus course, you're definitely not getting a 5 in the exam. There is a signifigant time pressure that does not allow for that.
I was in school around that time and I always had a graphing calculator in class and most of the time in standardized tests, AP tests, etc. It was basically just math competitions that wouldn't allow it. The graphing functionality was almost never used for anything. But the multi-line display could be used for notes, which is why they were banned for competitions.
> Imagine saying this about a graphing calculator, because that is essentially what the LLM is for knowledge work.
A frankly hilarious statement given several key facts:
* You don't get and in fact are usually barred from using a graphing calculator outside of coursework designed around it
* Even when you DO use one, it is very often after years upon years of drawing graphs yourself. Analogous to LLMs even moreso than your core example, because to make use of an LLM in a way that is actually productive, you DO need to know what you're talking about with it, to suss out when it's made some bullshit up.
you people pretend to hold a rather romantic notion about what school education is. most kids are being educated by indifferent teachers, 40 kids at a time, with little to no opportunity to ask questions. LLMs are an incredible boon for self-education, second only to the Internet itself, being able to function as a tutor on every subject, and you're hand-wriggling about imaginary dangers of... what, exactly?
I've seen the same moral panic during the commodification of Internet access in my country in mid 00's -- "students are going to cheat on their homework and become dumb!!1", blah-blah-blah-fart-blah. you only pretend to care about kids to push your politics.
So let's get this straight: we have many underpaid, overworked teachers who aren't given the resources needed for students to succeed. Our solution to this, in lieu of better educational budgets (and appropriations of said budget), is to rely on the rugged individualism of primary schoolers to be motivated to just learn content by themselves. This being driven by trillion dollar interests who have the budget but not the incentive nor drive to actually make sure students succeed.
Meanwhile, private schools who have both budget and drive will teach kids who can afford it and teach them proper railguarding against such tools. Did I get your point of view correct?
> most kids are being educated by indifferent teachers, 40 kids at a time, with little to no opportunity to ask question
What absolute horseshit
I have met a lot of teachers in my life and I don't think I have ever met one that was remotely indifferent to their students. Its not like they're getting into it for the money :/
I would think that AI is a great fit for Marx's goal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and as such a Socialist mayor would promote its use it to advance towards Socialist goals. Note: would, not should.
Is AI not in an important way from humanity's abilities, and is it not being used to help meet our needs?
one in five children in the united states lives in a food insecure household. that has more relevancy to the “need” here than whatever you’re suggesting
I'd "need" to know what you see my interpretation of needs as being before I could answer better. But I'll give it a try without a dictionary.
In its most fundamental sense, a need is a requirement for life to continue and reproduce. These requirements typically involve the abilities to compete, to obtain food, to have shelter, to mate and protect the young, etc.
Isn't AI to serve needs? For example, the need to find bugs in software so somebody can compete economically and employees can meet their needs as described above? To buy food, shelter, raise children?
Quite seriously, I think this is an important underpinning of why AI is advancing, and where it's taking us. The fact that it overlaps with Marx, at least to me, is a fascinating and incredible irony, because its success is an application of the very seductive message behind Marxism.
I’m sure there are really unique and great ways to utilize AI in the educational setting, however, young children should not be the Guinea pigs. Prove that certain things are beneficial, not just think they are, and then implement with oversight. People need to stop overthinking everything and just take one step at a time, evaluate and then take another step.
> People need to stop overthinking everything
If anything, it sounds like (you think that) they need to be more thoughtful and not just throw every new technology and technique at the kids and see if it works.
I’m not trying to nitpick, but slow down, think, and measure before acting seems like clearer advice. Really what you are fighting is assuming that new technology is useful and just trying out various ad hoc ways to discover how to realize that usefulness.
Who is the authoritative voice of reason for the effectiveness of any educational approach or tool? It takes years to sort things out and by then the approach of the day has moved on. Education is an area where everybody feels like they are an expert. In the US, we can't agree on the simplest things impacting our children.
"overthinking" was the wrong word, clearly, yes.
That gets in the way of making money though.
i don’t mind this at all.
tbh im fatigued of the general public being beta testers for companies.
The good news is, this won't do anything to stop the kids.
Don't ban smoking, this won't do anything for those who want to smoke.
Don't force seatbelts, those who don't want to wear are not going to
Don't try to restrict $A, it's against personal freedom/liberty that us at $corporate love.
The job of the school is to teach and prepare the young children. If kids use things that could be dangerous outside of school, then that is the parents responsibility. Meanwhile, the school should do what they deem as most appropriate to ensure quality education.
How many kids below 16 do you know that smoke and drink alcohol?
Clearly, laws have not an insignificant effect, even if you could easily ignore them.
It is quite common outside of the US. Actually I think other places are generally better with binge drinking in the late teenage years, but one of the few ways America really did seem to have a lead over the rest of the world in personal health was that we were able to cut down on teen smoking for a while. Then vaping got invented and I’m sure it’s a huge problem again.
yeah AI companies are pretty vehemently set on making kids dumb & dependent on their products for life. a school district doesn't have the power or bankroll to oppose them. what arrogance lol
Imagine saying this about a graphing calculator, because that is essentially what the LLM is for knowledge work. You can either be dumb and spell 8008135 or you can get an education and make it sing. They definitely want us dependent on their products for life, because that's what capitalism is, but dumb kids won't be the profitable ones.
A graphing calculator for all knowledge work is just a(n artificial) brain. It’s not hard to see how offloading brain work to another brain makes your brain less powerful.
I’m not saying you can’t be intelligent in a world of LLMs but people who use the calculator analogy underscore the fact that the LLM isn’t just eliminating the drudgery of one subdomain of mechanical problem solving — every problem is one an LLM can provide and answer for, including what you should learn, what problems you should solve, what your next conversation with the LLM should be about. So they do pose at least a threat of people truly offloading indefinite amounts of their own critical thinking to models, and there’s also danger that such people will in general still be competent enough often enough (due to LLM competence) that they are hard to screen out of key decision making roles or even from highly profitable roles.
Yet there were times where I was not allowed to use a graphing calculator in school tests (mid 00's). Honestly. if you are completely reliant on a graphing calc in an AP calculus course, you're definitely not getting a 5 in the exam. There is a signifigant time pressure that does not allow for that.
We were not allowed to have graphing calculators in elementary or highschool (90s), either.
I was in school around that time and I always had a graphing calculator in class and most of the time in standardized tests, AP tests, etc. It was basically just math competitions that wouldn't allow it. The graphing functionality was almost never used for anything. But the multi-line display could be used for notes, which is why they were banned for competitions.
> Imagine saying this about a graphing calculator, because that is essentially what the LLM is for knowledge work.
Can you plot a graph from an equation by hand?
If you can't, but you can use a graphing calculator to plot the graph then it seems like it has led to you not learning that skill.
And being able to look at an equation and plot a graph in your head is pretty valuable imo
> Imagine saying this about a graphing calculator, because that is essentially what the LLM is for knowledge work.
A frankly hilarious statement given several key facts:
* You don't get and in fact are usually barred from using a graphing calculator outside of coursework designed around it
* Even when you DO use one, it is very often after years upon years of drawing graphs yourself. Analogous to LLMs even moreso than your core example, because to make use of an LLM in a way that is actually productive, you DO need to know what you're talking about with it, to suss out when it's made some bullshit up.
you people pretend to hold a rather romantic notion about what school education is. most kids are being educated by indifferent teachers, 40 kids at a time, with little to no opportunity to ask questions. LLMs are an incredible boon for self-education, second only to the Internet itself, being able to function as a tutor on every subject, and you're hand-wriggling about imaginary dangers of... what, exactly?
I've seen the same moral panic during the commodification of Internet access in my country in mid 00's -- "students are going to cheat on their homework and become dumb!!1", blah-blah-blah-fart-blah. you only pretend to care about kids to push your politics.
> 40 kids at a time
i wonder why that is. what kind of attitude towards the value of education would allow this. grok help me out here
So let's get this straight: we have many underpaid, overworked teachers who aren't given the resources needed for students to succeed. Our solution to this, in lieu of better educational budgets (and appropriations of said budget), is to rely on the rugged individualism of primary schoolers to be motivated to just learn content by themselves. This being driven by trillion dollar interests who have the budget but not the incentive nor drive to actually make sure students succeed.
Meanwhile, private schools who have both budget and drive will teach kids who can afford it and teach them proper railguarding against such tools. Did I get your point of view correct?
> most kids are being educated by indifferent teachers, 40 kids at a time, with little to no opportunity to ask question
What absolute horseshit
I have met a lot of teachers in my life and I don't think I have ever met one that was remotely indifferent to their students. Its not like they're getting into it for the money :/
“Good news” yeah…
Speaking of moratoriums, they also banned phone use. I am curious how that is going. No AI seems like it could be reasonable.
I would think that AI is a great fit for Marx's goal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", and as such a Socialist mayor would promote its use it to advance towards Socialist goals. Note: would, not should.
Is AI not in an important way from humanity's abilities, and is it not being used to help meet our needs?
> Is AI not in an important way from humanity's abilities, and is it not being used to help meet our needs?
So would this suggest we should take and redistribute AI capacity in some way...?
It's definitely being redistributed through the market. Also, I believe there are efforts underway to create open source AI.
I'm not advocating a Marxist dogma, so I can't affirm "we should take and redistribute AI capacity in some way".
The point you are arguing here is wildly antithetical to the entire concept of dialectical materialism. A child's analysis of Marx.
one in five children in the united states lives in a food insecure household. that has more relevancy to the “need” here than whatever you’re suggesting
I'm suggesting that AI fundamentally meets a tenet of Marxist dogma, and I'm surprised a Socialist mayor hasn't taken advantage of that fact.
i am suggesting that your interpretation of what a "need" is is wildly inaccurate
I'd "need" to know what you see my interpretation of needs as being before I could answer better. But I'll give it a try without a dictionary.
In its most fundamental sense, a need is a requirement for life to continue and reproduce. These requirements typically involve the abilities to compete, to obtain food, to have shelter, to mate and protect the young, etc.
Isn't AI to serve needs? For example, the need to find bugs in software so somebody can compete economically and employees can meet their needs as described above? To buy food, shelter, raise children?
Quite seriously, I think this is an important underpinning of why AI is advancing, and where it's taking us. The fact that it overlaps with Marx, at least to me, is a fascinating and incredible irony, because its success is an application of the very seductive message behind Marxism.
I appreciate everyone's time in challenging this.
> I'm suggesting that AI fundamentally meets a tenet of Marxist dogma
And why would be relevant to a democratic socialist?
Nobody who isn't already falling for the "promises" of AI is going to fall for word games like this.
Now that's interesting. One reason I fear AI is exactly because of the relationship you call a word game.