[charcircuit]

Personalized learning. Some people on the US were paying over six figures to be educated and now they can do it at a much better quality for free.

[echoangle]

You don’t pay for the insight, you pay for the certificate. If the AI doesn’t give you a degree, it doesn’t really help you. Even before AI, you could have learned stuff from a degree for free.

[pesus]

I don't think the software that lies to you and makes things up on a regular basis is a very good teacher. Even if it was, that's not worth the cost to society vs just improving education.

[charcircuit]

Teachers make even more up than AI in my experience. I would always trust an AI over a human teacher.

[pesus]

That's an incredibly depressing and anti-intellectual way to go through life.

[charcircuit]

I don't see it as anti-intellectual as in person learning is going to run into physical constraints of bringing together experts of individual subjects to a student. With the power of AI and the internet it is possible to bring such specialized knowledge directly to students where they are at.

[jerf]

Thinking that teachers (or AIs) are always right is the anti-intellectual way to go through life. Between a teacher or an AI just going off of its training data is a close call; between a teacher and an AI doing a web search it's no contest, it's the AI.

[brianwawok]

College was never about learning it was about signaling. I get two resumes on my desk, one went to Harvard, one learned about stuff on ChatGPT. Which has a higher likelihood of being a success?

[charcircuit]

It defends how you want to define success, but I would lean towards ChatGPT.

[Capricorn2481]

You would lean towards a resume that says "I learned from ChatGPT"? What does that even mean?

[charcircuit]

You don't have to literally say that. You just work in the skills you have acquired.