No I'm arguing against the false fairness in moderation in anything. It's just not correct. (Though I do sense a sort of cognitive fent fold in certain heavy AI-users, so maybe I should)
Not really, at least not without restructuring the educational system completely.
AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught, like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage, so why should children need such a thing? Besides, it interferes with how we teach, which is done by having students write things in their own words (which is just "that which I can't explain, I don't understand", instrumentalized). It's not the essay that is the point, it's probably kinda shit, but the point is the fact that you are writing it. If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn. It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment.
If we can use AI as an expert teacher with infinite time for each child, that does theoretically have promise (per bloom 2sigma). But it's also quite far away with what we've got right now.
We'll put aside where AI usage is a skill that needs to be taught (which I think there is definitely room for teaching people how to use it effectively as a tool) since that isn't what the discussion is about.
The article's talking about the use of AI learning rather than learning how to use AI.
> If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn.
I agree, and I think the original commenter would agree too given that this doesn't sounds like moderation.
The no-ai end is "you write the whole essay yourself" the all-in end is "you give the ai and idea and have it write the essay". The moderation approach is somewhere in-between and it could very well be "you write the essay and ask the AI to proofread and coach you through it".
> It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment.
Yes, having the ai act as a calculator when you need to learn and prove you can do it is a bad use of it. Having the Ai double check your work to catch errors, point out when you make the same mistake over and over, or ask it to walk you through another example are all productive uses.
No you kinda need to actually write the thing yourself. It's the struggle of writing that is the entire point, going through that is what teaches you the material.
Any time you reach for AI to make it easier, you're missing out on understanding and retention. If you cannot express the thing in your own words, then you do not understand it.
Just as you don't learn anything by copying someone else's homework, or expanding on someone else's summary (like if that worked, that's how we'd be doing already, holy crap would it accelerate teaching), the same doesn't work when AI is involved.
Again, it's not the essay that is the point, it's the work that goes into writing it. You need to hand it in so that the teacher understand where to put in more effort, but if it wasn't for that need, they'd probably have you throw it away after writing it. Because of this, AI even for finishing touches makes it harder for the teacher to assess your level, and the polish it brings doesn't actually help you learn.
At this point that's like saying Microsoft Excel isn't a skill that needs to be taught.
None of this stuff is easy to use, or obvious. If you want to get meaningful results out of it and avoid the many, many traps then there is an absolute ton you need to learn.
In the context of this conversation, the skill that needs to be learned is how to use AI to learn effectively. That gets into pedagogy and personal learning styles and self-discipline and all sorts of other extremely gnarly areas.
Isn't the industry's idea that 'prompt engineering' is over and anyone can use this stuff effectively?
There seems to be a literal trap where people are too trusting of the LLM and take its word on code or whatever is being offered instead of reading it themselves.
In the context of the classroom this means teaching discernment more than ever.
I don't like the conflation of terms, but they're obviously referring to LLMs, which are designed to use natural language prompts. And the integration of LLMs into Excel means that to some degree Excel doesn't need to be taught anymore.
Well let's say that is true, and we do teach a class of kids how to use AI, how much of that will still be applicable by the time they enter the work force?
Sure. Fentanyl should neither be completely banned from the nation nor easily obtained OTC by anyone. We should keep it available for things like epidurals.
Truisms fail when you get to the edge cases. This is well known and you aren't pointing out some massive flaw in their reasoning when it comes comes to classroom AI use.
They weren't responding directly to classroom AI use, they were responding to the parent comment making a general claim about moderation - which included moderation of using Tiktok. My immediate thought was "Tiktok is like meth", would you advocate for moderation of meth?
So I agree with the comment. It was appropriately placed and a valid point. Moderation is key for many things, but there are exceptions. Things that are highly addictive and corrosive may be a good category for exceptions. Things that are clearly bad (e.g. murder) are exceptions.
When someone says "life is as simple as x" and the someon else says "hold on its not that simple, what about this exception" that latter rebuttal is valid and constructive.
>"Tiktok is like meth", would you advocate for moderation of meth?
This is an absurd statement. If someone is trying to talk about the middle cases, redirecting the conversation to the edge in order to dismiss their general comment is not appropriate.
'Edge cases exist' is not a lesson most people here need to hear.
I'm not even sure it's demonstrable that all things are good in moderation. There is a very large class of things that simply aren't good in moderation.
This leaves it generously a thought teminating cliche devoid of meaning, certainly nothing you should be making decisions off.
This just isn't a good generalization though. It would be easier to enumerate the few things it does apply to than the manifold that it doesn't.
It fails in every direction, not just stepping on legos and murder. It's in no way better to be moderately happy or healthy than extremely happy or healthy.
For what it's worth, my understanding is that fentanyl is pretty bad as a recreational drug, which is why it started as a scam for people looking for heroin. It's too strong as an anesthetic and the effect lasts very little.
I dunno about everyine else but if someone else wants to then yes. If they can get clean product for proper dosing then it is already safer and better for everyone involved.
I mean, it worked reasonably well for my father while he was as recovering from his knee replacement. Fentanyl patches that gave a precise time-released dose.
The difference between AI robbing you of learning opportunities and acting as a tutor or sounding board is what question you ask.