611–620 of 629 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
iPads in exams? This just gets stranger and stranger
Just a tool to type with, it can be locked to prevent internet access or any other app.
You're allowed to use a biro though, quills and inkwells are optional
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They appear to be equating technology with products that did not exist when they were in elementary school.
That would be correct! And all the technology added since has resulted in no discernible improvement in educational results. In college, the classes were a lecture with a professor, 9 blackboards and colored chalk. Not even handouts (well, there was one on time dilation). Calculators utterly wiped out slide rules when I was in college, though nobody learned any math from a calculator. Calculators just made for quicke…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not complex. One must first learn HOW TO LEARN before they can use any tool to help them learn. There’s no substitution for human connection (social media) and there’s no substitution for traditional learning (robot teachers). Everyone who wants to “disrupt” this fundamental human quality is chasing delusion. If you want to help, pay teachers a couple billion from the hundreds-of-billions going into AI maybe?
I agree that the human touch is valuable. I disagree that humans are required to bootstrap meta-learning; I think it is quite deeply wired into the human brain and there is no reason that we can’t create digital gyms that give opportunities to learn the same insights. I also disagree with the essentialist position that the best education possible must be pure-human provided. Maybe if cost is no object and you have a…
You seem to think you're making some kind of valid argument here by backing up your opinion about one thing by providing evidence of something unrelated aside from both things happening to involve AI. I'm guessing only reason it seems obvious to you is because it's not obvious to you that what you're disagreeing is something different than what's going on to begin with.
I haven't seen anyone say the best education would be pure-human provided. The entire point of the article is that the effect AI has had on the education of children so far has not been beneficial.
The fact that AI useful for GPs for getting relatively simple yet time consuming administrative work taken care of has nothing to do with children's education. GPs aren't doing paperwork to develop their fundamental reading and math skills. Less time dealing with the non-medical portions of running a practice means they can spend more time with their patients. Spending more time with their patients allows them to better understand their symptoms and make a better informed, more accurate diagnosis even if AI is never used in a patient-facing capacity. In no way does that indicate that AI is currently a suitable to deploy in education.
I don't know if you used AI to learn about what you were arguing with and gather information to back up your argument, but if you did then that's another example of why there's so much concern about little kids using it. Eventually it will be worked into something without such a double edged nature when applied to early learning. Everyone already knows it can be an educational boon for people who have the skills to use it properly. So far, statistics indicate students do not have those skills. The rate of failure among undergraduate students is only continuing to accelerate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have never claimed it to be good enough to replace a qualified educator, however for self learning it is a good tool with no hustle. You also consider how qualified some educators are...
It's far superior in many cases. Teachers get tired, lose patience, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the next movement would be blocking LTE/5G during courses. No social media = dumb phone
they don't seem to have the courage to do it. they don't even bother closing down the school wifi for a lot of stuff. there's also parent who would boohoo about not being able to contact their kids all hours of the day
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By... another AI model. Which uses statistical generation to decide whether the answer is likely to be accurate or not.
Which still makes it more than probabilistic sounding words.
I think this is basically right. You don’t hand out calculators before kids understand arithmetic. LLM version is sneakier because skipping the work still produces something that looks finished.
But I think the AI topic is a double-edged sword. Those tools can help tremendously when used in the right setting (e.g., similar to how brilliant.org works) and can easily spoil the whole learning effort when used wrongly.
I am not convinced that a ban is the solution, but probably better than doing nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that the human touch is valuable. I disagree that humans are required to bootstrap meta-learning; I think it is quite deeply wired into the human brain and there is no reason that we can’t create digital gyms that give opportunities to learn the same insights. I also disagree with the essentialist position that the best education possible must be pure-human provided. Maybe if cost is no object and you have a…
> I also disagree with the essentialist position that the best education possible must be pure-human provided. Maybe if cost is no object and you have a 24/7 human tutor on speed dial for each kid, that would be superior to any AI-assisted form. But it seems pretty obvious to me that human+ai could deliver better results than human alone, in the same way that AI is very clearly enabling GPs to broaden their diagnosti…
I took GP to be saying exactly that, and the OP’s full ban on AI in schools is also enforcing pure-human.
> I don't know if you used AI to learn about what you were arguing with and gather information to back up your argument
Accusing someone of mindless AI slop is a bad faith read. It’s also against the HN community guidelines. Please don’t do this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In real life everything from porn to alcohol to cigarettes, and even movies all require ID. And it's super easy to bypass in endless ways, but those efforts have nonetheless been overwhelmingly successful. And I don't really understand the issue people have with social media and ID. You're already required to link your phone which is a massive invasion of privacy, and the sites themselves not entirely infrequently de…
>In real life everything from porn to alcohol to cigarettes, and even movies all require ID. And it's super easy to bypass in endless ways, but those efforts have nonetheless been overwhelmingly successful. By what possible measure have they been overwhelmingly successful? Pornography and alcohol are still used regularly by a double-digit percentage of youth.
By contrast, the rate of alcoholism among youth is extremely low. What do you think it would be if alcohol were completely legal? Prohibition on something doesn't mean it disappears. I fully expect my children to have some drinks when they go to parties, as I did. And I also fully expect they'll try, and fail, to hide their breath/drunkenness from me. And that's fine, I'll also play the role of being tricked. The whole point of the prohibition is that it denormalizes the behavior and keeps it hidden away, which does an overall phenomenal job of minimizing excessive consumption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In real life everything from porn to alcohol to cigarettes, and even movies all require ID. And it's super easy to bypass in endless ways, but those efforts have nonetheless been overwhelmingly successful. And I don't really understand the issue people have with social media and ID. You're already required to link your phone which is a massive invasion of privacy, and the sites themselves not entirely infrequently de…
The digital world is not like the real one. When you show your ID once all it's details are saved and can be searched across. When showing your ID to the cigarette vendor they will not notice most data and will have forgotten it a while later. So we need to be more careful with the data we give out digitally. No ID is needed, just proof that you are above a certain age. There are technological solutions to just give…
And on top of this those sites also have a tendency of demanding ID at their own whimsical and arbitrary discretion and often in even more invasive ways, like requiring a selfie of a person holding their ID along with a scanned, not even photographed, image of said id with all details clearly visible.
[1] - https://ec.europa.eu/digital-building-blocks/sites/spaces/EU...