Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tomsayer 21 days ago
I'm Tom, cofounder of Ello.

-> I think teaching a child to trust an LLM from a formative age is horrifically irresponsible.

I largely agree, although with some nuance. One of the most important skills a young child today is going to need as they grow up is the ability to understand what's AI and what isn't, and how to interact with things that are. We actually work hard to make sure a child knows they aren't talking to something real - that they're talking to a computer program.

If part of the comment was on the accuracy of LLMs; our system of multiple harnessed LLMs running in parallel does deliver pedagogically solid and accurate content and experiences. There's a few comments in this thread about LLM hallucinations - We have curriculum specialists constantly evaluating the interactions that Ello delivers, and it just isn't a major factor right now.

So we need to ensure that we're delivering a high-quality, accurate experience for a child, while at the same time making sure that they understand what's reality.

-> Actually, better, don't put an LLM in front of children. At all.

I've responded above to your reason against using AI in education. But to judge whether it's right to avoid using AI with children entirely, we also need to weigh the positive side. So many children get a substandard education that isn't responsive to them and doesn't set them up for success - whether that's a child stuck in a class of 30 being treated as average, or one of the 270 million kids who don't have access to any education at all. Saying "don't put an LLM in front of children" misses the reality of what education actually looks like for so many of them IMO. If your kid gets everything they need from their school, their home, their private tutor and so on, then great.

So our answer is to use the benefits of AI to build technology that teaches - that understands where a child is and gives them the next learning experience they need to keep growing - while making sure they understand they're dealing with a computer program, and without trying to replace the critical role of the people in their lives.

1 comments

> We actually work hard to make sure a child knows they aren't talking to something real - that they're talking to a computer program.

The problem is not talking to a computer program. Kids have been using computers in school long before LLMs.

The problem is teaching a child to trust what the non-deterministic system is guessing at them. That will carry forward in their life.

You’re teaching them that an LLM is right, not just what it is.

As an aside, I’m also not sure about the certainty of what “making sure” a 4-year old knows is real or not is.

> If your kid gets everything they need from their school, their home, their private tutor and so on, then great.

That’s a powerful emotional point made to shut down criticism. Except it has nothing to do with putting a kid in front of LLMs.

I expressly mentioned this in my comment. You could create a mountain of educational material, apps, and tools with LLM assistance and verify it. Same result.

-> You could create a mountain of educational material, apps, and tools with LLM assistance and verify it. Same result. I very strongly disagree with this. Teaching is not the same as a bunch of educational material and apps. The use of AI in education does not replace teachers, but it can get much closer to the responsive, learner centered, high-touch learning experiences that teachers provide, and that are proven to deliver the best outcomes.

-> That’s a powerful emotional point made to shut down criticism. You made a blanket statement - without any substantive points - that we shouldn't put LLMs in front of kids. I was arguing that there are advantages that we should take into account, not trying to shut down criticism.

-> not sure about the certainty of what “making sure” a 4-year old knows is real or not is. I agree. We're being very cautious here. My co-founder, who is a clinical child psychologist, has a blog post on exactly this you can find it in the footer of our website.)

We’re going to disagree about the quality of LLM learning experiences.

As an educator I’ve used them a lot for myself and in teaching others. Good for one-off topics if you check facts and a lot of human educators have built good quality content that it rips off.

LLMs are rather terrible at an extended progressive curriculum.

That said, the core thesis was simple: it’s dangerous to teach children to trust LLMs.

Not what they are. That they’re right. Which they aren’t. A lot.

You said you largely agreed with that. So, what’s the approach within this service to mitigate that?

I appreciate you responding but you’re throwing a lot of “but X” when the question is “what about Y”.