[JumpCrisscross]

> I think AI could (and by some students probably already is) be used to help a student better understand the material, and faster than you could before

I think so too. But we haven’t demonstrated we’ve found how, in kids or in adults.

> biggest issue is

We genuinely don’t know what the biggest issue is. We just know it doesn’t work. There is zero quality evidence for AI helping with learning or cognition in kids or adults. (Happy to be proven wrong. This is a fast-moving and big field.)

> they'll find a way past any law blocking them from using AI. Like a lot of education it'll probably come down to parenting

And community. Rich towns restrict devices in school, monitor use at home and thus will have less of an issue with AI exposure.

[ApolloFortyNine]

>I think so too. But we haven’t demonstrated we’ve found how, in kids or in adults.

Ask chatgpt or claude, on their highest model (probably unnecessary but I'm sensing a vibe) to explain a simple linear algebra problem, and if you don't understand it, ask about what part you don't understand.

And if you truly believe it made something up, prove it.

This is seriously the easiest thing to prove out there, you can see for yourself in the next 5 minutes.

[solid_fuel]

> And if you truly believe it made something up, prove it.

You seem to be assuming that the issue is around factual correctness, and that may be the case but the evidence we have so far doesn't support jumping to such a narrow cause.

Is the poor performance because the LLMs are frequently wrong? Unknown.

Is it because the LLMs are sycophantic? Unknown.

Is it because the chat interface is a poor one for learning? Unknown.

What we do know is that students who rely on LLMs learn less and perform worse in the long term. And that alone is enough evidence to support a ban. If better tools come along in the future and are shown to aid learning, then the ban can be re-evaluated.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sure. I already know linear algebra. If it’s a new branch of mathematics, this is a terrible way to learn.

Again, the research points almost exclusively in one direction when it comes to learning and cognition around AI. You’ll solve more problems more quickly but wind up learning and thinking less.

[ApolloFortyNine]

Honestly, what do you think a teacher does that an llm can't? If you want to learn you absolutely can ask an llm how to _solve_ x and explain the steps and why.

My leaving out the word solve seems to have led some of you astray, I apologize.

Again the problem is you have the option to solve your problem and move on without understanding it. That does not mean you can not use the tool to understand the problem and how to _solve_ it.

I live in fear that instead of learning how to use the tool, some might just vote to ban the tool.

[JumpCrisscross]

> what do you think a teacher does that an llm can't?

I don’t know! It’s an interesting question. All we know is it does.

> That does not mean you can not use the tool to understand the problem and how to _solve_ it

It doesn’t. But we have no evidence it can.

We have lots of evidence of people thinking they’ve learned something, taking a benchmarking test, and being found wholly deficient compared to folks who worked through a textbook, went to a class or even solved problems off YouTube videos or instructional websites.

[wieiw]

lol people like this guy prove AI psychosis is legit.

If you can’t figure out what the value add of a human teacher is then.. fkin lmao. It’s well beyond simply transmission of information.

The best teachers have passion - that passion is infectious. I was lucky enough to experience that and it grew my curiosity.

LLM’s provide no such equivalent.

[JumpCrisscross]

> best teachers have passion

Not everyone has the “best teachers.” And passion is undefined. This is not a real argument.

[skydhash]

> to explain a simple linear algebra problem, and if you don't understand it, ask about what part you don't understand.

The goal is not to understand a linear algebra problem. The goal is to learn how to solve it using lessons and techniques taught beforehand. Aka not to get a fish, but learning how to fish.

[ApolloFortyNine]

I'm sorry the wording of my post didn't match what you wanted.

Type in "Explain how to solve a simple linear algebra problem" into the AI of your choice instead.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Type in "Explain how to solve a simple linear algebra problem" into the AI of your choice instead

I’m more interested in seeing how someone who teaches themselves with this approach scores on a standardized exam of linear-algebra competence.

[skydhash]

> Type in "Explain how to solve a simple linear algebra problem" into the AI of your choice instead.

I’ve seen this particular philosophy in college where the student focus exclusively on passing exams. They would memorize notes and past exercises. The focus is on solving a particular set of exercises instead of understanding the concepts. Change things slightly and they’re lost.

That may not matter in college where you can focus on a few disciplines and half-ass the rest. But everything in lower stages is truly foundational.