| |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Not really, at least not without restructuring the educational system completely. AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught, like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage, so why should children need such a thing? Besides, it interferes with how we teach, which is done by having students write things in their own words (which is just "that which I can't explain, I don't understand", instrumentalized). It's not the essay that is the point, it's probably kinda shit, but the point is the fact that you are writing it. If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn. It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment. If we can use AI as an expert teacher with infinite time for each child, that does theoretically have promise (per bloom 2sigma). But it's also quite far away with what we've got right now. | | |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We'll put aside where AI usage is a skill that needs to be taught (which I think there is definitely room for teaching people how to use it effectively as a tool) since that isn't what the discussion is about. The article's talking about the use of AI learning rather than learning how to use AI. > If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn. I agree, and I think the original commenter would agree too given that this doesn't sounds like moderation. The no-ai end is "you write the whole essay yourself" the all-in end is "you give the ai and idea and have it write the essay". The moderation approach is somewhere in-between and it could very well be "you write the essay and ask the AI to proofread and coach you through it". > It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment. Yes, having the ai act as a calculator when you need to learn and prove you can do it is a bad use of it. Having the Ai double check your work to catch errors, point out when you make the same mistake over and over, or ask it to walk you through another example are all productive uses. | | |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 3 days ago | parent [-] | | No you kinda need to actually write the thing yourself. It's the struggle of writing that is the entire point, going through that is what teaches you the material. Any time you reach for AI to make it easier, you're missing out on understanding and retention. If you cannot express the thing in your own words, then you do not understand it. Just as you don't learn anything by copying someone else's homework, or expanding on someone else's summary (like if that worked, that's how we'd be doing already, holy crap would it accelerate teaching), the same doesn't work when AI is involved. Again, it's not the essay that is the point, it's the work that goes into writing it. You need to hand it in so that the teacher understand where to put in more effort, but if it wasn't for that need, they'd probably have you throw it away after writing it. Because of this, AI even for finishing touches makes it harder for the teacher to assess your level, and the polish it brings doesn't actually help you learn. | | |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You need to hand it in so that the teacher understand where to put in more effort, but if it wasn't for that need, they'd probably have you throw it away after writing it. I am not sure how your literature classes went, but all of my essays were graded and feedback was provided to me specifically so I can get better. Perhaps my previously reply was too long winded, but feedback on your essay on how to improve it is the exact use case I gave as an example. | | |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Sure, let's say you used AI to correct your mistakes before you submitted it, now you can't get that feedback, and again, you're missing out on learning. | | |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Why would I be missing out on learning? If I want to improve my writing, why does it matter that if it’s Word, ChatGPT, or a teaching telling me that my spelling is wrong? Or that I keep making comma splice errors? Or that I have run on sentences? | | |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Your teacher needs to understand your level to provide you with further instruction that is suitable for your level. If you show them what ChatGPT wrote, then they're working completely blind, and the education is equivalent to watching a series of youtube lectures. Not that it's impossible to learn a subject that way, it just requires extremely self-motivated students. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | simonw 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | "AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught" At this point that's like saying Microsoft Excel isn't a skill that needs to be taught. None of this stuff is easy to use, or obvious. If you want to get meaningful results out of it and avoid the many, many traps then there is an absolute ton you need to learn. In the context of this conversation, the skill that needs to be learned is how to use AI to learn effectively. That gets into pedagogy and personal learning styles and self-discipline and all sorts of other extremely gnarly areas. | | |
| ▲ | operatingthetan 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Isn't the industry's idea that 'prompt engineering' is over and anyone can use this stuff effectively? There seems to be a literal trap where people are too trusting of the LLM and take its word on code or whatever is being offered instead of reading it themselves. In the context of the classroom this means teaching discernment more than ever. | |
| ▲ | breezybottom 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't like the conflation of terms, but they're obviously referring to LLMs, which are designed to use natural language prompts. And the integration of LLMs into Excel means that to some degree Excel doesn't need to be taught anymore. | |
| ▲ | marginalia_nu 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well let's say that is true, and we do teach a class of kids how to use AI, how much of that will still be applicable by the time they enter the work force? | | |
| ▲ | simonw 3 days ago | parent [-] | | The bits about learning to communicate in clear and unambiguous way, having a skeptical ear and knowing when to double-check information that is being presented to them, and understanding how to use tools in a way that enhance their own learning should ideally last a lifetime. | | |
| ▲ | Avshalom 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Communicating in a clear unambiguous way doesn't actually help with using llms. | | |
| ▲ | simonw 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Disagree. Many people are really bad at clear communication. It doesn't matter how good an LLM gets, it will still be less effective to use it if you give it prompts with no single obvious meaning - you'll have to go a few extra rounds with it asking clarifying questions, or it will go ahead and do a thing you didn't mean it to do because your instructions could be reasonably interpreted another way. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | csa 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught Given how much time I spend teaching people how to use AI effectively, I humbly disagree. AI slop is not using AI effectively. > like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage … especially adults > so why should children need such a thing? So that the scope of merits and demerits of the tool are explicit from the start, and this understanding can evolve along with the tool. |
|
|
