| ▲ | mullingitover 3 hours ago | |||||||
Tutoring is another situation where it can succeed wildly or fail miserably, and it will depend more on the harness than the model. Tutoring is a process, and the end result is that the student gains a demonstrable new capability. The how isn't as important as the end result. If we end up with a bunch of people with increased personal capabilities, it's a win. If we're lazy and we end up with a bunch of people leaning on crutches, we failed. Time will tell, I guess. Could be a surprise answer to Bloom's 2 sigma problem or a very stunted generation, or a mix of both. | ||||||||
| ▲ | lelanthran 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
> Tutoring is a process, and the end result is that the student gains a demonstrable new capability. The how isn't as important as the end result. I disagree. If, after you have been tutored, you perform well, but still need tutoring for the next year's exam in that subject, then you haven't been "tutored", you've been given a similar enough copy of the exam questions to train on. As I keep telling my kids, good results is a side-effect of good habits. If you're half-assing things, it shows up in your results. If you studious and methodical, it also shows up in your results, just in a different direction. AI is used primarily to half-ass things, do things without checking, getting good vibes by that sycophantic tone. Get your kids into a rut of good habits, and they'll run in that groove forever, regardless of tutors or AI. Half-ass your way through life, then sure, they'll get fucked over by AI tutors too. | ||||||||
| ||||||||