291–300 of 418 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I edit a lot so I set the delay in my profile to give me 10 minutes to do so.
If you edited within ten minutes then something isn't working, because your comment changed multiple times after I replied to it. The delay is supposed to prevent me from seeing it at all until the period is up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a screenshot of the conversation: https://imgur.com/a/MYOQRK3 Aside from the wrong answer, I also didn't like the fact that it just told me to multiply the numbers, instead of giving me a smaller hint that might allow me to realize this for myself.
Amazing that it made such a basic mistake, so many times. I thought they wrapped the AI in enough layers of meta-cognition that it wouldn't make mistakes like this. Maybe AI in education really is like FSD, as another commenter said (so close, yet so far).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But now you have an AI that solves it for you. and then the AI explains how it was solved, step by step. You can repeatedly ask it to clarify, and it has endless patience and won't get bored or sick of you. Eventually, you understand how the equation is solved. No human teacher would be able to achieve this.
That requires a young student who is really self-motivated to keep asking it to clarify things. Plenty of teachers, parents, and tutors are willing to keep trying new ways of explaining things to kids until they understand it. The kid giving up is way more common than the adult without someone pushing him to keep trying or coming back to it regularly. Obviously, not every child has someone in his life that cares enou…
If they choose to use an AI to "cheat" and not learn, then it is no different than them using any other methods to not learn (such as truancy).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But now you have an AI that solves it for you. and then the AI explains how it was solved, step by step. You can repeatedly ask it to clarify, and it has endless patience and won't get bored or sick of you. Eventually, you understand how the equation is solved. No human teacher would be able to achieve this.
A human teacher can see the problem from the students perspective and understand the error they make and why they make it. No current ai would be able to achieve this. But alas, few human teachers can or will take the time to do this per student. Infinite time and patience really are the ai's superpower here IMO.
Not all teachers are able to see the POV of the student. In fact, i would argue that only exceptionally good teachers are able to.
Whether AI can achieve this level of understanding is still yet to be seen, but i would hope it is possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But now you have an AI that solves it for you. and then the AI explains how it was solved, step by step. You can repeatedly ask it to clarify, and it has endless patience and won't get bored or sick of you. Eventually, you understand how the equation is solved. No human teacher would be able to achieve this.
> Eventually, you understand how the equation is solved. No human teacher would be able to achieve this. Not true, but only available at great expense.
Don’t think so. When my daughter needed the AI-powered Khan tutoring service last year for assistance with math, it was at a time when I had lost my job and depleted the family savings supporting the family. I pleaded for a waiver of the subscription, which was flatly and repeatedly denied. The result, my daughter’s math grades fell to the low 20 percent, and at no point did the teacher notify us. We’ve been repairin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> As for "GPT-4" fabricating things, I remember in school how I wrote essays and was given A's despite citing NYT and Wikipedia. Fabrications exist all over the place. If anything, hallucinations might give more examples as to how to be skeptical of any source and look for direct sources as much as possible. At least you wrote it by yourself? Copy-paste from GPT-4 removes the whole thinking process and need for basic…
You ask a very interesting question, that to me speaks to the future of education gets to the bottom of education entirely. Right now, education focuses on getting people through the system so they can attain a credential. It teaches us, primarily, how to get one over on the system, how to look for loopholes and shortcuts. It creates a culture of corruption, of looking for approval from institutions in order to move…
That feels like a very uni-dimensional view
I am a high school dropout and who learned math using Khan Academy after never having completed more than pre-algebra in middle school. Sal Khan’s work changed my life and allowed me to build a foundation in not only math, but also finance and economics, that allowed me to feel confident enough to go to college. I did not have a support system or people in my life who could teach me these things, but I had the intern…
A very powerful story! thanks for sharing
I don’t doubt that it’s true in OC’s case. But I don’t think it’s representative of the impact of technology. It’s the example that will get Bill Gates’ attention and end up on the stage at TED, but it might not be representative of 90% of how people are affected by technology. It might, and the story of how videos will change how people relate to each other (what made Chris Anderson buy TED, what Salman Khan has built, what Grant Sanderson a.k.a, 3blue1brown has done). It is true, anecdotally. It is a fantastic, compelling, clear story. I love that story: video is the easiest way to share any practice; people watch, learn, practice, and get good at something no one in their village knew was possible. Hurray.
But when I trained as a statistician, i.e., epistemologically someone working for the state, I was told I was the opposite of a journalist: my job is not to tell stories that explain what a problem is. My job is to tell the boss how common that story really is. A story tells all the details to pull your emotions, and journalists (at the time, at least) were telling fact-check, double-verified stories. “Truth” wasn’t our goal. It is too easy to get numbers that argue for any position. Representative was what we were told we should be aiming for—so that the government makes the right decision.
I’m not seeing a lot of “representative” here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you have ever worked with children you will realize vast majority of them lack the willpower to learn new things and seek out answers. A good teacher can provide the social accountability and guide them, but it's not something you can put on auto pilot with AI.
This is the crux of the problem in my opinion. Children look to adults as role models for what to learn and why. We already know that children respond better to role models who have similar ethnicities and backgrounds to them, let alone being the same species. AI cannot and will never be able to provide this motivation to learn, which is what kids actually need, because it is not human.
We hear all the time about digital addiction, gamification, FB, Tiktok, etc. Addiction is arguably more difficult to achieve than motivation. AI will be able to motivate people just fine