[cornholio]

The counterargument is that kids will live in a world different from our own.

For example, in many countries children lost the ability to write cursive; that used to be a critical skill comparable to literacy itself. But in our current society, that's no longer the case and you can be very successful without it, but there are other skills, such as using technology, that became critical.

Any definitive claim to know what are the right things kids should learn in a moment of rapid technological shift is probably garbage and just a projection of our own biases.

[rTX5CMRXIfFG]

But how do you know that letting kids use AI at a way earlier age is the right way to equip them for the world that they would live in? You don't even know what that world will be like, so you can't even draw the conclusion that teaching them AI today will create career success in the future.

And then there's the other solid supporting arguments:

- Humans today were able to comprehend and use AI as soon as ChatGPT became popular so kids today will be able to pick it up quickly as grown-ups.

- "Using AI" isn't really a skill because there isn't much to learn beyond typing to a chatbot and reading the output (creating agentic workflows are very much for power users).

- The form of AI tech today might not even be the same as its form in the future, so you're already teaching them something obsolete.

[cornholio]

The point is that knowing what you don't know allows you to hedge your bets on events far into the future; my child will need to become productive 20 years from now and maintain it for 40-50 years. So, it's a bit like trying to educate a kid born in the 60s for the web era, you can't and you shouldn't even try.

What you can do though, is to offer them broad exposure to things that are interesting to them and their generation; my eastern block clone of the 8bit/48KB Spectrum computer didn't really help me excel at math, reading or history, nor was it to be the future of technology, but it did change my life significantly by letting me understand and relate to people that I couldn't otherwise have business dealings decades later.

It seems imprudent to cut children off from futuristic technology just because of a moral panic that it causes brain rot. Unless we know it's soma, a drug so powerful that it subdues volition and curtails intellectual development; we don't.

[chadgpt3]

How do you know it's a moral panic and it isn't actually causing brain rot?

[ifdefdebug]

Everybody and their grandma can "use AI". Reading (and understanding what you read), writing (coherently) and calculating (in your head) are those basic skills that need to be trained and will give you an advantage no matter in what kind of world you live.

[noufalibrahim]

> Any definitive claim to know what are the right things kids should learn in a moment of rapid technological shift is probably garbage and just a projection of our own biases.

I don't think this is as clear as you make it out to be.

There are areas (e.g. personal care as per the impact map released by Anthropic a few months ago) where the impact of AI will be less than in the ones HN often discusses. Communicating with people is important in many of these areas so making sure that kids "should learn" how to communicate is a good investment regardless of how rapidly technology is shifting. There are different time tested ways of doing this and while you can "disrupt" these a little, throwing them out completely is, at least to me, a bad idea.

OTOH, doubling down on learning "skills for the future" which are all bold bets while sacrificing things that have served humanity through multiple moments of change is probably a bad idea.

As for cursive writing (or atleast handwriting) itself, there are several studies of learning it being associated with developing fine motor control, improving memory, improving focus. I can't find them right now but I remember reading them because of my own interest in calligraphy. Many older (especially religious) traditions place emphasis on using written (rather than digitally typeset) books for memorisation because the slight changes in the shapes of the letters act as reinforcements for the process. I know this from experience as well so I think there's definitely value there.

[lostlogin]

I went through a Steiner school from pre-school to end of high school. It’s highly opinionated and very controlling initially. When you paint, you start with one colour. Then another day you get the next (there were only primary colours, because of course).

You eat at your desk, then you’re allowed to play. This was dropped after a year or so.

You don’t learn to read until you’re 7, etc etc.

However, by the end of high school it was up to the individual how much they achieved, and there was minimal pressure. As long as you weren’t messing with other kids, you could do a little or much as you please, and consequences were minimal.

Tools and skills were introduced at a developmentally appropriate age - not sure who chose that age though.

There was a lot wrong with the school and the system, but there was a lot more that was right in my opinion.

[hgomersall]

Yeah, I we considered a Steiner school because I think that extensive play is a super critical part of a good education. The problem is you also need to be able to be part of the mainstream system at some point, and it felt like it didn't necessarily quite meet that goal.

[lostlogin]

> The problem is you also need to be able to be part of the mainstream system at some point

There is a requirement to meet certain state mandated standards and the one I went to also took state funding, leading to dilution of Steiner influence/an improved curriculum. It depended which side you were on.

[creesch]

Also worth considering is that it is part of a broader ideology of Anthroposophy which sometimes aproaches semi cult status in how people identify with it. A lot of the principles of Steiner schools are actually pretty cool, but sending your kid there, depending on the school they will also be dealing with the more esoteric bits of all of this that have very little to do with didactic or pedagogic sound principles.

Some if it includes some schools teaching some of the more racists views of Mr Steiner.

[lostlogin]

This is probably true of every school that follows a philosophy or belief system.

It needs addressing. The school was white wealthy hippies when I was there. It’s vastly more representative now.

[truncate]

>> Any definitive claim to know what are the right things kids should learn in a moment of rapid technological shift is probably garbage and just a projection of our own biases.

I'm not really sure what point you are making here. We can talk about stuff based on what we know now. AI definitely isn't there yet. Even adults are figuring it out, the limits of its capabilities and shortcomings. Its not even been 5 years, and we want to change everything everywhere.

So if we don't know if we should or should not, and take into account all the hype, marketing, hype, advantages and some potential disadvantages (which are quite serious) why not just go ahead when there is more confidence.

[calgoo]

My 6 year olds have been writing cursive at school all year, they have a zero policy about phones until the age ~15, and still use books for everything. Not many schools do this anymore, but there are schools that still do.

[da_grift_shift]

You're absolutely right! Joined-up penmanship is exactly the same as our current asymmetry in absorbing reams of soullessly verbose, arrogant pablum shat out by the latest crop of "frontier" LLMs.

    Heirloom Groceries

    Sponsored

    La Mesa Roja Enchilada Kit

    In stock • $14.99 • 25-35 minutes

    Ads do not influence the answers you get from ChatGPT. Your chats stay private.

    Learn about ads and personalization >

[ifwinterco]

From a UK perspective it's very weird that kids in America don't learn to write joined-up.

How can you write sufficiently fast in an English or History exam (where you have to write a whole essay in limited time) if you're writing one letter at a time like a 6 year old?

[graemep]

I agree, but its also somewhat weird that the main reason kids learn to write cursive is for exams - its not a skill most of us use in adult life, and even for kids writing outside exams is often done on computers (e.g. my daughter's A level history coursework was done on, and submitted from, a computer).

Some of the exam boards are trialling computerised exams where exams are completed on computers instead of paper. Its cheaper for them to not have to handle paper (which gets scanned anyway). Its long been possible as an accessibility arrangement but it might become the norm.

[kalleboo]

I went to school in two different countries where I was taught/required to write joined-up, but I was never actually taught to write it quickly, only "correctly". I was (and of course still am) much faster at writing in block letters, so I'd draft my essays in block writing, then re-write it in joined-up to hand it in.

[master-lincoln]

If your history exam grade hinges on your "typing speed", you had a bad teacher. It's not like you can not write sufficiently quickly using block letters.

[lotsofpulp]

> How can you write sufficiently fast in an English or History exam (where you have to write a whole essay in limited time) if you're writing one letter at a time like a 6 year old?

You use an ipad and keyboard or some other similar device. The only times in my life I have had to use cursive were in elementary school, pretty useless skill to have in this day and age.

[ifwinterco]

iPads in exams? This just gets stranger and stranger

[lotsofpulp]

Just a tool to type with, it can be locked to prevent internet access or any other app.

[ifwinterco]

This happens in the UK but only if you're literally disabled in some way so you can't write by hand, everyone else still uses pen and paper for all exams.

You're allowed to use a biro though, quills and inkwells are optional

[mort96]

Kids won't grow up into a world where it's not beneficial to know how to read or write or think.

[analog31]

>>>> Any definitive claim to know what are the right things kids should learn in a moment of rapid technological shift is probably garbage and just a projection of our own biases.

I'd say this is the case in times of technological stability as well.

Education has always been based on heuristics: Teach A, B, and C, with the hope that people will gain X, Y, and Z. Avoid P, Q, and R. The suspicion that some forms of education are fructifying, and others are stultifying, are largely a matter of guesswork and social bias. Attempts to clear things up with "studies" tends to produce results on a par with pseudoscience. Our biases are all we've got.

The reaction to AI isn't the first time that parents have had to decide on the merits of educational technologies: Radio, TV, the early Internet, social media, etc. Even books. There was certainly a suspicion that TV and social media caused brain rot, or a related issue, moral rot.

Regarding your comment below, I was born in the 60s, and was certainly educated for the web era. I'm more adept with technology today, including AI, than most people half my age.

My children were required to learn Microsoft Office in elementary school, "for their careers."

[QuesnayJr]

Isn't that a straightforward argument for preserving the status quo as much as possible in learning? We know how to get people to learn without AI, so we should keep doing it until someone figures out how to use AI effectively.