[tomsayer]

-> 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.)

[TonyAlicea10]

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”.