[petesergeant]

I feel like the article is not disciplined about maintaining definitions between Education and learning here, but there's some interesting stuff. I've found (I think!) LLMs to be hyper-useful for enquiry-based learning: lots of "well does that mean that" and "isn't that the same as" and "but you said earlier that" and "could you use shorter answers and we'll do this step by step please".

I am curious to dig into "Generative AI Can Harm Learning"[0], referenced in the article. I think the summary in the article skips over some of the subtleties in the abstract though.

0: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4895486

[ffdixon1]

I re-read the abstract and they tried two different modes of ChatGPT-4, "base mode" and a "tutor mode". The tutor mode helped students more, but it cautioned at the end:

> Our results suggest that students attempt to use GPT-4 as a "crutch" during practice problem sessions, and when successful, perform worse on their own. Thus, to maintain long-term productivity, we must be cautious when deploying generative AI to ensure humans continue to learn critical skills.

I think the caution is the use of AI to circuit the real learning, even if AI is in a tutor mode, to avoid building up true grit.

Ultimately, in writing this article, my hope was that a student would read it and get angry, angry that over use of AI - using it as a crutch - is actually having a negative impact on their learning, and they would resolve to using it only for more efficiency and effectiveness, not a substitution for the true learning.

I was thinking of Richard Feynman’s approach to learning when writing this article. He was a genius, so I didn't want the analogy to be unrelatable. However, he really enjoyed understanding the first principles and that enjoyment gave him such a solid foundation. He put in the necessary hours to learn, and what a remarkable life he enjoyed because of it.