Doesn't matter. Every time some maniac invents some, we all need to scramble to adopt it. This is what _progress_ is. Is there's a new technology, we don't think about the consequences. We all just adopt it and use it so thoroughly that we cannot imagine living without it.

Nonsense

There will however be a gigantic gulf between kids who use AI to learn vs those who use AI to aid learning

Objective review of Alpha school in Austin:

https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/your-review-alpha-school

This is kind of odd.

Bloom's paradox is well known and proven in education.

AI is the first thing that can positively personalize education and instruction and provide support to instructors.

The authors seem of limited technical literacy to know that you can just train and focus only on textbooks, instead of their explorations using general models and the pitfalls that they have. Not knowing this key difference affects some of the points being made.

The intersection of having a take on technology needs some semblance of digital and technical literacy involved in the paper to help acknowledge or navigate it, or it become a potential blind spot.

It takes legitimate concerns and ironically explores them in average ways, much like an llm returns average text for vague or incomplete questions.

I encourage everyone thinking about commenting to read the article first.

When I finally read it, I found it remarkably balanced. It cites positives and negatives, all of which agree with my experience.

> Con: AI poses a grave threat to students' cognitive development

> When kids use generative AI that tells them what the answer is … they are not thinking for themselves. They're not learning to parse truth from fiction.

None of this is controverisal. It happens without AI, too, with kids blindly copying what the teacher tells them. Impossible to disagree, though.

> Con: AI poses serious threats to social and emotional development

Yep. Just like non-AI use of social media.

> Schooling itself could be less focused on what the report calls "transactional task completion" or a grade-based endgame and more focused on fostering curiosity and a desire to learn

No sh*t. This has probably been a recommendation for decades. How could you argue against it, though?

> AI designed for use by children and teens should be less sycophantic and more "antagonistic," pushing back against preconceived notions and challenging users to reflect and evaluate.

Genius. I love this idea.

=== ETA:

I believe that explicitly teaching students how to use AI in their learning process, that the beautiful paper direct from AI is not something that will help them later, is another important ingredient. Right now we are in a time of transition, and even students who want to be successful are uncertain of what academic success will look like in 5 years, what skills will be valuable, etc.

The big issue I’ve faced and seen others face is the use of LLMs induced skill atrophy.

For studying, LLMs feel Like using a robot to lift weights for you at gym.

——

If people used to get cardio as a side effect of having to walk everywhere, and we were forced to think as a side effect of having to actually do the homework, then are LLMs ushering in an era of cognitive ill health ?

For what it’s worth, I spend quite a bit of effort to understand how people are using LLMs, especially non-tech people.