[carapace]

I don't want to rain on your parade. I really hope I'm wrong. But I see this as somehow profoundly, deeply dystopian.

On the one hand, AI should be used to alleviate the economic and social conditions that prevent children from having attention and coaching from caring adults.

On the other, raising children by robot seems sketchy to me (in ways that are difficult to articulate.)

Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.

[danielscrubs]

I think it's the opposite. I can't phantom that I would have learned programming at a young age if I didn't have a compiler telling me (with actionable steps, nowadays the search engine) that I'm wrong.

Teaching is a frustrating job where you have to make students repeat things over and over which makes students ashamed and the teachers bored, it's not like the movies where the students remember everything perfectly after a good explanation.

[carapace]

s/phantom/fathom/ I assume your computer did that?

- - - -

I'd say computer programming is different than reading comprehension. Compiling is perfectly appropriate for a machine to give you feedback: the process is mechanical and the machine has good information.

> Teaching is a frustrating job...

Right: that's the problem to solve. (I'm assuming you're not talking about, er, having hired people to be teachers who don't actually want or enjoy the job, eh?)

> ...you have to make students repeat things over and over...

I would say that that's a obsolete method of teaching: in 2023 we know enough about memory now to teach mnemonics. But that's kind of a tangent.

> ...students ashamed and the teachers bored...

More symptoms of a broken system, IMO.

We have much better systems and techniques for education than we generally use now. (In my experience school (public school at least) functions more as a warehouse to keep kids out of the way, and any educational effects are secondary. That's the problem we should be trying to solve, with AI or anything else...)

My point is that computers and robots should do the scut work to free up the adults to do the important human activities like teaching our young.

[eba7keb]

Totally hear the concern. We have a few thoughts about this: 1). It's an AND not an OR for us. Ello doesn't replace parents at all. In fact, many parents use Ello WITH their kids and report that Ello has opened the doors to the kid reading more with them. 2). Not all parents have the skills to teach their child to read (or the literacy skills), there are also non-native English speakers who use our product and are grateful to have that support. 3). According to data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a nationally representative assessment of student achievement in the United States, about 37% of fourth graders in the United States scored below the "proficient" level in reading in 2021. The scores are disproportionately lower for children of color and those with less resources. I would love for every child to have access to a 1:1 tutor (which runs about $100/hr), individualized education options and high quality education. But right now, we aren't supporting our kids.

It's also worth noting we aren't a full solution or a curriculum. So teaching in other ways still needs to take place. For many parents, it beats Disney plus and YouTube kids :)

[carapace]

First, thanks for taking the time to respond. Like I said, I do hope I'm wrong.

I will admit, this does seem like a pretty good use for computers.

I just I hope it's not part of the slippery slope to letting machines do our thinking for us. (Then again, what if they do a better job than we do!?)

I'm curious about how you detect and correct problems with the machine material? E.g. the (presumably automatic) error of substituting "phantom" for "fathom"?

Does your machine take a overconfident stance, or does it understand its own limits and help the child to know that it is not infallible?

[danielscrubs]

Nah, it was my mistake, and now I'm ashamed. Maybe should add Grammarly to my toolset. ;)