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

401–410 of 460 posts

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

#401

Post by jplusequalt »

Marha01 wrote: post #237
nkrisc wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A reflexive anti-AI Luddite attitude is the healthy default until there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society.

> We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society. Nope. Any nation that thinks like this will be outcompeted by more tech-positive nations in the long-term. It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.

>It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.

Here's one study from last year (1000 students) [1]. They showed that improved outcomes with AI are short term, and likely a result of AI doing the work for the student. Their methodology involved a test without the use of AI at a later date, and one of the groups who used AI tested much worse than the control group who did not use AI during learning.

Moreover, a tertiary group that used a specially trained AI for tutoring showed no improvement in testing outcomes over the control group.

[1] Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakçı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). "Generative AI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning: Evidence from High School Mathematics." PNAS, 122. PNAS

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

#403

Post by cognitiveinline »

jplusequalt wrote: post #348
cognitiveinline wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Taxing you higher?

Paying teachers higher is a harder sell than isolating children from humans so they can talk to an LLM? What fucking society are we trying to cultivate?

Apparently one where taxing you higher for better teachers does not elicit a "sure, yes".

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

#406

Post by TonyAlicea10 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #396
TonyAlicea10 wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re applying human cognition expectations to an LLM. Just because the topic is simple to a human doesn’t mean it improves the likelihood the LLM will behave better. It’s all inference to the machine.

I’m applying my experience with these models, as well as common sense. What are you applying? Would you even admit LLMs are useful for this if they’re perfect at topics that kids would be learning? Or are your objections actually ideological rather than pragmatic?

I'm not sure how common sense says that LLMs will hallucinate less on topics for children. That's not how they work.

And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic.

And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them.

That is a problem both ideologically and pragmatically. You have to think long-term.

On a side note: ask an LLM to write a story at a 4-9 year old level. Work with it for awhile doing iterations and it will hallucinate a previous detail or change a character name as context rots. Lots of other examples of "basic" topics that still produce hallucinations.

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

#407

Post by lowsong »

thenatureboy wrote: post #354
lowsong wrote: post #172

What you're building should be illegal. Educators who use these tools on children should face jail time. It's hard to overstate the harm of the system you are building. Please understand, there is no way this idea is salvageable or any tweaks or safeguards can make it safe. If you've actually tested this on real children you've already risked extreme harm. Please, stop.

hyperbole much?

No. If anything I’m understating the risk.

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

#408

Post by senordevnyc »

TonyAlicea10 wrote: post #406
senordevnyc wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m applying my experience with these models, as well as common sense. What are you applying? Would you even admit LLMs are useful for this if they’re perfect at topics that kids would be learning? Or are your objections actually ideological rather than pragmatic?

I'm not sure how common sense says that LLMs will hallucinate less on topics for children. That's not how they work. And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic. And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them. That is a problem both ideol…

The common sense part is not holding LLMs to a standard of absolute perfection that literally no other medium, or humans, can reach.

You’re welcome to your views, but they don’t make a lot of sense, or fit with reality. Continue angrily tilting against windmills I guess.

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

#410

Post by TonyAlicea10 »

senordevnyc wrote: post #408
TonyAlicea10 wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how common sense says that LLMs will hallucinate less on topics for children. That's not how they work. And no, LLMs are not perfect. They're non-deterministic. And no, even if they were perfect my statement was that it is irresponsible to teach a child to trust an LLM. Even if it was perfect on these topics, as they move forward in education that trust would later fail them. That is a problem both ideol…

The common sense part is not holding LLMs to a standard of absolute perfection that literally no other medium, or humans, can reach. You’re welcome to your views, but they don’t make a lot of sense, or fit with reality. Continue angrily tilting against windmills I guess.

You were skeptical that LLMs would hallucinate on topics for children and you said it was common sense.

But now you’re saying the common sense is that they will hallucinate.

Post reply on HN