Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

ello.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 460 posts

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#111

Post by ffsm8 »

atmavatar wrote: post #93
jph00 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heaven forbid we let poor people use software that helps their kids read. If they can't afford a tutor, they deserve nothing. (Am I doing this right?)

Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions: * An AI tutor is a net positive in learning for the subject matter it covers. * An AI tutor does not cause other harms. * An AI tutor is going to be cheap enough that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor. I'm mostly willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the first point, but the third point seems unlikely, and history ha…

Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions:

* An AI tutor is a net negative in learning for the subject matter it covers.

* An AI tutor does cause other harms.

* An AI tutor is going to be more expensive that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor.

Seriously, my first reaction to reading this headline was a knee jerk "are you insane", but this whole thread is just people arguing out of their arse while claiming authority. As of today, it was never attempted. It is also possible that the kids gain an advantage by learning to use llms to teach themselves things, which would be positive for their future.

I don't think it's going to happen, but that's just my opinion based on essentially prejudice, not a fact

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#112

Post by [deleted] »

jph00 wrote: post #72
afry1 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of them don't get access. So let's hook them up to an insane, unproven, unpredictable autocomplete math equation and entrust it to their development as a human being. So gross.

Heaven forbid we let poor people use software that helps their kids read. If they can't afford a tutor, they deserve nothing. (Am I doing this right?)

[deleted]

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#113

Post by Jap2-0 »

Maxatar wrote: post #99
spaqin wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 year old kids should have enough play time with their peers and develop their social skills, instead of being sat in front of a screen with any kind of content. I feel a parallel between this and people defending short form video saying "but sometimes it's educational!" (it's not).

There's more than enough time in a day for a 5 year old to play with other kids and also spend some time learning.

At that age especially, play with other kids is time spent learning.

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#114

Post by lern_too_spel »

bluefirebrand wrote: post #104
CaptWorld wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah tell them to change things.. why didn't we think of that? Provide opportunities to make parenting less stressful like here so that they can involve more.. this reflexive anti AI luddite attitude isn't productive as it's just less signal and more noise..

It's not reflexive, I've spent a lot of time and effort considering why I think AI is bad for society.

[flagged]

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#115

Post by catalinvoss »

ffsm8 wrote: post #111
atmavatar wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions: * An AI tutor is a net positive in learning for the subject matter it covers. * An AI tutor does not cause other harms. * An AI tutor is going to be cheap enough that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor. I'm mostly willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the first point, but the third point seems unlikely, and history ha…

Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions: * An AI tutor is a net negative in learning for the subject matter it covers. * An AI tutor does cause other harms. * An AI tutor is going to be more expensive that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor. Seriously, my first reaction to reading this headline was a knee jerk "are you insane", but this whole thread is just people…

[flagged]

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#118

Post by catalinvoss »

erikschoster wrote: post #69
catalinvoss wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Thank you. The segment showing a child reading text on the screen which highlighted a word they had difficulty with seems like it could be a useful learning interaction. How does your system follow up in that case? Have you studied this type of interaction? That's the only moment in the video that gave me a sense of what it might be like for a child using this system. In the blog post you say: > Imagine a custom stor…

Totally agree that we should expose kids to the great classics and I love Pipi Langstrumpf as I grew up to know her. The challenge is often that these books aren’t the best to learn to read with, because they don’t have decodable words. So you’ll want a mix: windows into the works of great literature appropriately scaffolded and ways to explore your own curiosity. But see Elizabeth’s reply below for much better depth.

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#119

Post by willmarch »

gentooflux wrote: post #83
willmarch wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"That will wildly hallucinate" feels wildly hyperbolic considering how fast models are improving in their abilities, especially with proper safeguards built into the model harness.

I was making a dessert recipe last week where everything including utensils needed to stay cold, and Gemini suggested I freeze my hands in an ice bath before getting started.

It's fairly common to briefly cool your hands with cold water or in an ice bath before working on certain recipes.

Re: Building a real-time AI tutor for 5-year-olds

#120

Post by jatins »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #98
jatins wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> insane, unproven, unpredictable autocomplete math equation It won IMO, solved Erdos problems. At what point will you stop saying that?

Probably when it stops agreeing with me when I tell it that industrial quantities of garlic salt are an acceptable substitution for coco powder in a chocolate mousse recipe...

Why are you telling it that? No one is arguing LLMs are perfect but at this point dismissing them as stochastic parrots seems a bit silly
Post reply on HN