I'm actually not really criticizing the decision so much the article and communications around it. If student learning outcomes are crashing and they desperately want to turn them around I understand why they would take dramatic action.

Giving students uncontrolled access to generic LLMs probably would hurt outcomes. Research process is slow (IRB and all that) so they are dealing with data from years ago (models that confident hallucinated a lot more than current SOTA) so if thats what they are basing it on its reasonable.

My frustration isn't with the decision (hey all teachers - no more chatGPT in the classroom). My frustration is with the reporting / nuance of "until we can research this better and figure out how to harness AI to improve outcomes and not undermine them".

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> the reporting / nuance of "until we can research this better and figure out how to harness AI to improve outcomes and not undermine them"

It’s balancing the irrationally exuberant narrative of the tech bros and AI pushers. You have to stop the bleeding before you can dress the wound to promote healing.

▲

FloorEgg 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think one balances a lack of nuance with more lack of nuance.

One avoids nuance for clicks or to propagate a narrative, sew division, distract, etc.

Again. As I said in both my comments, I'm not criticizing the ban, I'm criticizing the absence of any communication regarding a plan for researching potentially constructive uses. As a reader, I can't tell if the Norwegian leaders have no plan, or if they didn't communicate a plan, or if they did and Reuters chose not to include it in the article.

Not everything has to be a culture war. When we are talking about our children's future it would be cool to do so pragmatically.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Eh, if the politician thinks this is the clarity of language necessary to send the message, I think that’s fine. Studying this and that can come later. It’s not like anyone is banning that research.

▲

FloorEgg 2 hours ago | parent [-]

And I guess that's a big part of my frustration. I don't know what the politician actually said. I don't see any link to the/an official statement in the article.

I'm just an old man shaking fist at clouds.

I'm sitting on a mountain of evidence (n=44,000) that used in a very specific way and context AI accelerates and improves lasting learning outcomes. Th3 data is new, but the science that explains it actually goes back decades, predating AI - it's based on pedagogy from texts such as How People Learn (NRC).

My data also shows that students using AI the wrong way perform way worse - the performance gap is widening between students who want to learn and struggle (and use AI to optimize struggle) and students who want instant gratification and use AI for shortcuts.

So I know that if they truly slammed the door on this potential then they threw the baby out with the bath water.

But I don't know the truth because Reuters doesn't report the truth, and that's what tips me from concerned to frustrated. But I guess by complaining about modern journalism standards in a thread about banning AI I'm breaking HN guidelines. Time for me to log off...

	▲	JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> sitting on a mountain of evidence (n=44,000) that used in a very specific way and context AI accelerates and improves lasting learning outcomes Can you point to it?