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

341–350 of 460 posts

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

#341

Post by lern_too_spel »

forgetfreeman wrote: post #307
lern_too_spel wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make my earlier critique of your argument clearer, some applications of AI might be bad for society, but it does not follow that the tutoring application is also bad for society.

Educational outcomes tank when computers are introduced to classrooms. It absolutely follows that AI as a tutoring application is bad for society. https://fortune.com/2026/03/14/america-math-and-reading-scor...

It does not follow that anything produced by an electronic computational device is bad for children or society. I've personally seen computers teach children barely two years old to read.

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

#342

Post by uoaei »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #285
uoaei wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect grammar is less important than comprehensible semantics for all but the most niche linguistic applications.

One of these "niche linguistic applications" is language learning.

English is uniquely riddled with exceptions to rules linguistically. Teaching inflexibly only makes students flex around you.

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

#343

Post by uoaei »

gowld wrote: post #315
burgreblast wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps human teachers would model correct grammar? vs "you like dinosaurs! me too!” From the blog post.

That is "correct" grammar, English as she is spoke.

That's also grammar that's fit to get you harangued and chided by other 4-9 year olds on the schoolyard. Social outcomes are the primary means by which language is meaningful.

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

#344

Post by willmarch »

gentooflux wrote: post #165
willmarch wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It used the words "freeze your hands"

I think any reasonable person would come to the conclusion it meant for you to chill your hands in ice water.

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

#345

Post by uoaei »

metalspot wrote: post #320
liendolucas wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AI is a massive leap forward in providing safe and educational digital experience. Can you point to any serious studies that sustain that claim? If anything that sounds like a gamifying learning experience, letting children become expert beginners.

Can you point to any serious studies that show the opposite? No. They don't exist. There cannot be any serious studies until there is a generational cohort that can be evaluated for long term impact. But on a personal level I would vastly prefer my children use even a crappy AI chat app like Deepseek than watch Youtube. If you have young children and pay attention it would be almost impossible to come to a different…

How about the broad anecdotal consensus that Duolingo, a gamified language app, famously does not do much if anything to prepare people for conversational fluency.

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

#346

Post by thenatureboy »

frantang3 wrote: post #40

I'm a mom who actually has kids and this thread is insane. 'Just get a tutor'...okay?? Are you paying for it? Because that's not an option for a lot of families. I get that it's more ideal, but the alternative is...nothing? Do you not agree that all kids deserves a chance to read? Are we not seeing the lack of reading proficiency in the majority of American adults nowadays?? Or yall too stuck in your tech bubbles?? T…

Came here to say that 'just get a tutor' isn't the failsafe that people think it is.

We tried to get two tutors for our child. Both had no idea what they were doing and oversold what their capabilities were. You can't just hire someone to teach your kid how to read and expect results.

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

#347

Post by bluefirebrand »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #340
bluefirebrand wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A responsible society would make sure that the applications have good results with adults before even thinking about applying it to children And despite the hype, the jury is still out for how the results are for adults using AI

Nobody has tried to systematically apply AI tutoring for adults. AI tutoring for children is easier because there are more people who understand the domains that need to be taught to children and can evaluate if the children have grasped the concepts appropriately. It is clear that a personal human tutor can achieve incredible results, and almost everybody who has revolutionized any field you might think of is a prod…

> AI tutoring for children is easier

We shouldn't do questionable shit just because it's easier

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

#348

Post by jplusequalt »

cognitiveinline wrote: post #331
gverrilla wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay your teachers better.

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?

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

#350

Post by metalspot »

uoaei wrote: post #345
metalspot wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to any serious studies that show the opposite? No. They don't exist. There cannot be any serious studies until there is a generational cohort that can be evaluated for long term impact. But on a personal level I would vastly prefer my children use even a crappy AI chat app like Deepseek than watch Youtube. If you have young children and pay attention it would be almost impossible to come to a different…

How about the broad anecdotal consensus that Duolingo, a gamified language app, famously does not do much if anything to prepare people for conversational fluency.

"broad anecdotal consensus" very scientific. i don't disagree, but is it better than youtube? tiktok? instagram? (cocaine? meth? fentanyl?)
Post reply on HN