[throw46365]

> We need both humans and AI.

Genuine question: Why do we need both humans and AI? What's the evidence base for this statement?

I feel this is another thing that proponents state as if it's unchallengeable fact, an all-progress-is-good thing.

I question this assertion. People have become all too comfortable with it.

(Personal opinion: I don't think teaching needs AI at all, and if it does, a traditional simple expert system with crafted answers would still be better. I think there's a staggering range of opportunities for improving teaching materials that don't involve LLMs, and they are all being ignored because of where the hot money goes.)

[majeedkazemi]

I think my stance is pretty clear about "utilizing" AI in educational settings. We absolutely don't need AI the same way we need air to breathe. But AI could potentially provide some solutions (and create new problems or have adverse effects as well), so why not explore it properly to find out where it works and where it doesn't?

[batch12]

The statement is a false statement to begin with. We don't have AI yet. Maybe when we have software that is truly intelligent, we can let it teach us. Until then I see this more as a buggy interactive textbook and agree with the author's description of it as a tool and disagree with the idea of it as a teacher.