331–340 of 368 posts
It's awful, but I think we'll see it happen, sadly.
In the workplace, we're using AI anyway.
I'm not sure if this direction is suitable for kids, like we still learn to do calculation even when we have calculator (which is needed for some cases, but for complex math, we opt for tools)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Respectfully, do you think you are helping K-12 students by withholding exposure to an AI world they will soon be expected to be competitive in?
When google came around it took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to use it. Further when I saw things in the search results that didn't make sense or were plainly wrong, I had the pre-gpogle critical faculty to question things. Do you think we are helping K-12 students by letting AI doing hallucinated thinking for them? What incredible "AI skills" will they be missing out on if we restrict the exposure? How to t…
We are creating a massive competency gap by treating AI exposure as somehow more dangerous than social media, which we've already allowed to reshape adolescent development with inarguably negative educational value.
AI is already redefining job requirements and academic expectations. Students who first encounter these tools in college will be competing against peers who've had years to develop working usage patterns and build domain specific applications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm surprised the answer of doing all exercises (including essay writing) in class is apparently not obvious. High school me was a moron and should not be trusted to do the real work and people who know better should force him to practice the skills lol Once he's grown and has a job he will one day realize and be thankful for the teachers that forced him to do the work. Obviously not true for all students but I don't…
Part of the problem is that in some areas schools (and parents) have leaned so heavily into certain notions of "equity" or "care" that they no longer are willing to require anything so specific. I use quotes because while I think there is value in moving more towards those goals than schools often did in the past, I think it's possible to take it too far. At some point there has to be some sort of standard that has t…
It's harder for those who have additional accommodations at home, but we could arrange for those accommodations to be made in the school, and those who have accommodations at home are in a better position to advocate for getting what they need than those with rough or busy home lives.
Unfortunately, this kind of story will continue to be a popular one in newspapers and magazines, garnering lots of clicks. It feeds into the "everything is different now" sort of desperate helplessness people seem primed to adopt with respect to AI sometimes. Obviously the answer to testing and grading is to do it in the classroom. If a computer is required, it can't connect to the internet. Caught with a cellphone,…
When the one that can make Captain Trips bioweapon in a garage comes out, I'll start blaming the technology, at the moment, its the choices made by humans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is fundamentally different. It replaces, and thus atrophies, cognitive faculties in a way the other tools you mentioned never aspired to.
No, it isn't. "Spellcheck removes the ability to spell" "Calculators prevent you from doing math." "Computer art will destroy real art" "Typing text will destroy cursive and handwritten". Same idea, that some form of tech will destroy something we should value.
The younger people at my job have atrocious spelling.
My ability to do mental math is much worse than it was when I was regularly doing math without a calculator.
People who have exclusively learned digital art do not have the muscle memory built up to seamlessly transition to analog art.
Almost everyone I know has awful handwriting.
So the question then is "What is the actual skill that AI tools are replacing?" And if the answer is "thinking," then that should be terrifying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there are no consequences, what is the incentive to bear responsibility? Sorry, but if a starving child is not enough of an incentive, I'm not sure we're talking about people that can be incentivized. Either they want to provide for their children but are unable to or they just don't care. Punishing the former does nothing to help the child, likely only exacerbates that situation as, last I checked... parents wh…
I'll try once more. There are children starving globally every day. How many of them are you saving personally? If not all, why not? How many should we save collectively? And which "we" should be responsible for which children (neighbourhood, town, city, country, region)? If so, why? These are not trite questions. Think carefully before answering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll try once more. There are children starving globally every day. How many of them are you saving personally? If not all, why not? How many should we save collectively? And which "we" should be responsible for which children (neighbourhood, town, city, country, region)? If so, why? These are not trite questions. Think carefully before answering.
Don't move the problem. We weren't discussing world hunger.
Okay, I'll tone down the snark (it's only there because you got my back up). Ultimately as you think about these questions, you will realize that the answers are not absolute, but based on degrees. You might think "hmm, I can't solve world hunger, but maybe I can help all the kids in my neighbourhood/city/state." Essentially what you will settle on a quantity and duration that seems reasonable to you. The thing with reasonable is that if you scratch the surface, it's little more than a line in the sand. Your own personal line based on your personal beliefs and values. Turns out everyone else has a personal line too, just in a slightly different spot, based on their different beliefs and values. That's why there's no one right answer. In civil society, everyone compares their lines and through debate, settle on one. Since it's a compromise, no one is actually happy with the outcome, but it's the best outcome we can arrive at given the problem.
Your current position is one of intolerance: It seems impossible for you to understand why the line could be in any spot other than the one you picked. If that's the starting point, then you can never come to an agreement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So teachers are...proctors? No reason to have every teacher recording their own lectures. One teacher per grade per district? Per state? Outsourced to the lowest bidder who generates it with AI?
There is far more value in skilled individual attention at the doing exercises stage - helping where people are stuck, figuring out which parts need revision - than at the lecture stage. Think about how college seminars work - you do the reading on your own, the learning happens when you're digging into it in a group setting.
If we're talking about K-12 education, that is for everyone and it's in society's interest that the most people learn the fundamental knowledge that we are trying to teach them.
I'm certainly open to the idea that our current approach is not optimal but I'd need to see evidence that a seminar-style approach would work in that setting. Maybe for some high school subjects. In fact some English classes were that way. We'd get a reading assignment, and then discuss in class, and then typically also have to write something about it on our own.
But math, sciences, and English topics such as grammar were all taught by lecture and example and I'm not sure the seminar approach would work as well there.
Unfortunately, this kind of story will continue to be a popular one in newspapers and magazines, garnering lots of clicks. It feeds into the "everything is different now" sort of desperate helplessness people seem primed to adopt with respect to AI sometimes. Obviously the answer to testing and grading is to do it in the classroom. If a computer is required, it can't connect to the internet. Caught with a cellphone,…
Are you suggesting kids spend longer times in school or suggesting kids spend less time on education?
That's 88 days per semester.
Take 8 of those and use them to assess student progress and determine grades in class. That leaves 90% of the school year for learning in class.