I question what that looks like compared to young folks using their brain muscles more — learning to question and think, memorize and learn, cognitive skills. I fear that can be lost or severely damaged if most of that is offloaded to LLM in adolescence.
But I could be an old man yelling at the sky 😂
Replies (2)
2 ways I would push back based on getting 3 kids through our school system.
1. Quality and quantity of source material available in AI/LLM vs even the most up to date books. Both mediums require a questioning mindset when engaging but I would argue that that skill is not dependent on the available information. There is now no excuse for not having access to a much richer information set vi AI than books.
2. Ham stringing learning paths because of catering to the group rather than the individual. One of my kids didn’t fit the educational systems version of the “ideal” student. He could do university level math in his head while in high school but because he was unable to write the “workings” down on paper with a pen (a tested and verified “learning disability”) they failed him. When tested verbally he was not only 3-4 years ahead of his classmates he was also able to demonstrate that he could arrive at the required answers every time. With hindsight I can see that a personalised AI/LLM would/could not only have pushed his innate ability further but also could have been used to test him in a way that was not tied to a system that was designed not to test individual depth but group shallowness.
I could go on. As a parent looking both backward and forward, I would jump into AI/LLM assisted learning for my kids in a second!
Kids already know exactly how to learn - by starting with an application for the knowledge and working backwards, which is exactly how LLMs work
The ground up education system (learning the basics) was a necessary function of the technology available to people for the last 500 years, but it’s backwards of our species natural tendencies
