Instead of banning AI, I made a classroom contract with my students

Not really, at least not without restructuring the educational system completely.

AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught, like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage, so why should children need such a thing? Besides, it interferes with how we teach, which is done by having students write things in their own words (which is just "that which I can't explain, I don't understand", instrumentalized). It's not the essay that is the point, it's probably kinda shit, but the point is the fact that you are writing it. If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn. It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment.

If we can use AI as an expert teacher with infinite time for each child, that does theoretically have promise (per bloom 2sigma). But it's also quite far away with what we've got right now.

Analogies with calculators have a big problem. The calculator has no intelligence of its own. A model does. (Yes, it does. You have to be either delusional or willfully ignorant to argue otherwise at this point. Take a calculator to the IMO and see how far you get.)

So there are, or at least there will be, cases where it's actually a good idea to delegate your thinking to an AI model. Students who aren't taught to acknowledge that possibility and keep it in mind are being done a disservice, just as if they were taught to treat today's limited, early-generation LLMs as a first resort.

We'll put aside where AI usage is a skill that needs to be taught (which I think there is definitely room for teaching people how to use it effectively as a tool) since that isn't what the discussion is about.

The article's talking about the use of AI learning rather than learning how to use AI.

> If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn.

I agree, and I think the original commenter would agree too given that this doesn't sounds like moderation.

The no-ai end is "you write the whole essay yourself" the all-in end is "you give the ai and idea and have it write the essay". The moderation approach is somewhere in-between and it could very well be "you write the essay and ask the AI to proofread and coach you through it".

> It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment.

Yes, having the ai act as a calculator when you need to learn and prove you can do it is a bad use of it. Having the Ai double check your work to catch errors, point out when you make the same mistake over and over, or ask it to walk you through another example are all productive uses.

No you kinda need to actually write the thing yourself. It's the struggle of writing that is the entire point, going through that is what teaches you the material.

Any time you reach for AI to make it easier, you're missing out on understanding and retention. If you cannot express the thing in your own words, then you do not understand it.

Just as you don't learn anything by copying someone else's homework, or expanding on someone else's summary (like if that worked, that's how we'd be doing already, holy crap would it accelerate teaching), the same doesn't work when AI is involved.

Again, it's not the essay that is the point, it's the work that goes into writing it. You need to hand it in so that the teacher understand where to put in more effort, but if it wasn't for that need, they'd probably have you throw it away after writing it. Because of this, AI even for finishing touches makes it harder for the teacher to assess your level, and the polish it brings doesn't actually help you learn.

They weren't responding directly to classroom AI use, they were responding to the parent comment making a general claim about moderation - which included moderation of using Tiktok. My immediate thought was "Tiktok is like meth", would you advocate for moderation of meth?

So I agree with the comment. It was appropriately placed and a valid point. Moderation is key for many things, but there are exceptions. Things that are highly addictive and corrosive may be a good category for exceptions. Things that are clearly bad (e.g. murder) are exceptions.

When someone says "life is as simple as x" and the someon else says "hold on its not that simple, what about this exception" that latter rebuttal is valid and constructive.