[atmavatar]

Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions:

* An AI tutor is a net positive in learning for the subject matter it covers.

* An AI tutor does not cause other harms.

* An AI tutor is going to be cheap enough that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor.

I'm mostly willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the first point, but the third point seems unlikely, and history has given us no shortage of reasons to distrust tech companies on the second point, even if we assume this company can be trusted now.

[senordevnyc]

The second one feels like a subset of the first. If it’s net positive, the other harms are worth it.

And I don’t think you’re really engaging with what they said, which is that it might be better than nothing, which is what is realistically available to many kids. Do you really think something like this is worse than nothing?

[atmavatar]

I limited the first point to specifically deal with learning the subject matter, but I added the second point to account for any negative externalities which may fall outside that.

A small (contrived) example: a child uses an AI tutor because they're falling behind in mathematics. The tutor does an excellent job at getting the child back up to speed and improving his/her grades in math, but the child then starts becoming dependent on AI tutors for all subjects because they've either lost interest or capability for self-learning.

We've already seen a study or two indicate extended use of AI coding agents causes some people to lose their own coding ability over time, making them dependent upon the agents. It doesn't seem far-fetched that children could become dependent upon AI tutors in a similar fashion.

That's not to mention that AI tutors require children to have computer access, which would ultimately cement in place school laptop programs I was under the impression were neutral to net negative in and of themselves.

So yes, in short, I think AI tutors have the potential to be worse than nothing. I'm not asserting they are, but I'd like to see some studies done on the topic before rolling them out for children en masse.

[ffsm8]

Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions:

* An AI tutor is a net negative in learning for the subject matter it covers.

* An AI tutor does cause other harms.

* An AI tutor is going to be more expensive that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor.

Seriously, my first reaction to reading this headline was a knee jerk "are you insane", but this whole thread is just people arguing out of their arse while claiming authority. As of today, it was never attempted. It is also possible that the kids gain an advantage by learning to use llms to teach themselves things, which would be positive for their future.

I don't think it's going to happen, but that's just my opinion based on essentially prejudice, not a fact