| HN Mirror

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.

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

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.

> AI tutoring for children is easier

We shouldn't do questionable shit just because it's easier

We should do it because of the huge benefits to society. The fact that it is easier than doing something with marginal benefit is why we should do it first.

You have to demonstrate benefits to society before claiming you are providing them

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

forgetfreeman 19 days ago

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

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.

forgetfreeman 18 days ago

Anecdote < Data. Studies consistently show declines in every trackable metric associated with education when computational devices are introduced to the process. Until actual data is presented that contradicts these findings there's no grounds for rational debate.

lern_too_spel 18 days ago

> Studies consistently show declines in every trackable metric associated with education when computational devices are introduced to the process.

They're doing it wrong, just as the incentives in the classroom are wrong (to increase a number showing how many children meet some artificially low standard of competency). The rational debate comes from the hundreds of people who are doing it right on their own. These days, all the top chess players practice with an engine. All the top mathletes use AoPS tools. It's the same across every academic field, and the level at which the top is performing is far beyond what it was before computers were introduced. The amount of effort it would take to teach a barely two year old to read is far beyond what most parents have to give, but with an electronic device patiently saying letter sounds whenever an infant interacts with letters, it's trivial.

forgetfreeman 18 days ago

I look forward to your nomination for Secretary of Education since you appear to have a handle on something trained professionals on two continents backed by billion dollar industries have failed to master.

Marha01 18 days ago

> Educational outcomes tank when computers are introduced to classrooms.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

forgetfreeman 18 days ago

Fair, but when presented with a situation where one side of an argument has evidence and the other has baseless assertions the choice is rather plain.

Marha01 19 days ago

> 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 19 days ago

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.

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