[CaptWorld]

Yeah tell them to change things.. why didn't we think of that? Provide opportunities to make parenting less stressful like here so that they can involve more.. this reflexive anti AI luddite attitude isn't productive as it's just less signal and more noise..

[nkrisc]

A reflexive anti-AI Luddite attitude is the healthy default until there is overwhelming evidence otherwise.

We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society.

[Marha01]

> We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society.

Nope. Any nation that thinks like this will be outcompeted by more tech-positive nations in the long-term. It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.

[jplusequalt]

>It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.

Here's one study from last year (1000 students) [1]. They showed that improved outcomes with AI are short term, and likely a result of AI doing the work for the student. Their methodology involved a test without the use of AI at a later date, and one of the groups who used AI tested much worse than the control group who did not use AI during learning.

Moreover, a tertiary group that used a specially trained AI for tutoring showed no improvement in testing outcomes over the control group.

[1] Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakçı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). "Generative AI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning: Evidence from High School Mathematics." PNAS, 122. PNAS

[nkrisc]

> It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.

But then we're told we can't put the genie back in the bottle, it's too late, so we just have to suck it up and deal with it.

There's nothing preventing us from taking a more measured approach to new technology other than choice.

[bluefirebrand]

It's not reflexive, I've spent a lot of time and effort considering why I think AI is bad for society.

[forgetfreeman]

"reflexive anti AI luddite attitude"

That's awfully reductive there, champ. Most critiques of AI are based on some combination of observed failings of the technology, observed failings of the tech industry writ large, and healthy skepticism in the face of Yet Another Tech Industry Hype Typhoon. Anyway, the burden of proof isn't on skeptics, it's on the technology and it's proponents, so let's see some receipts before we agree to squander limited public resources on unproven systems yeah?

[logicchains]

>Most critiques of AI are based on some combination of observed failings of the technology

Most critiques of AI are based on experience with the cheapest AI available a year ago, by midwits unable to recognize that AI's performance on the Putnam, IMO and bar exam makes it far smarter than they are by almost every metric that was traditionally used to measure intelligence.

[bluefirebrand]

> Most critiques of AI are based on experience with the cheapest AI available a year ago, by midwits

You don't even need to use AI at all to have valid critiques of it

Plenty of other people are showing its flaws daily by replacing their entire personalities with AI slop

Oh it can do some impressive stuff sure. It is still bad for society

[lern_too_spel]

To make my earlier critique of your argument clearer, some applications of AI might be bad for society, but it does not follow that the tutoring application is also bad for society.

[bluefirebrand]

A responsible society would make sure that the applications have good results with adults before even thinking about applying it to children

And despite the hype, the jury is still out for how the results are for adults using AI

[lern_too_spel]

Nobody has tried to systematically apply AI tutoring for adults. AI tutoring for children is easier because there are more people who understand the domains that need to be taught to children and can evaluate if the children have grasped the concepts appropriately.

It is clear that a personal human tutor can achieve incredible results, and almost everybody who has revolutionized any field you might think of is a product of such a system. Scaling that would be immensely valuable to society.

[forgetfreeman]

Educational outcomes tank when computers are introduced to classrooms. It absolutely follows that AI as a tutoring application is bad for society.

https://fortune.com/2026/03/14/america-math-and-reading-scor...

[lern_too_spel]

It does not follow that anything produced by an electronic computational device is bad for children or society. I've personally seen computers teach children barely two years old to read.

[Marha01]

> Educational outcomes tank when computers are introduced to classrooms.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

[Marha01]

> You don't even need to use AI at all to have valid critiques of it

You cannot rationally criticize something if you have no up-to-date knowledge about it.

[forgetfreeman]

The industry hype mill and it's attendant horde of touts are working overtime to make sure the dude that mows my lawn is up to date on AI, so I'm not sure how you're going to advance the argument that anyone routinely posting to the epicenter of the AI hype typhoon is some how poorly informed on the topic.

[bluefirebrand]

That's like saying you can't know if a stove is hot without putting your hand on it