[flagged]
It's quite interesting. All of these things, like the internet, that are or were supposed to 'democratize' learning, knowledge, and so on often end up doing the exact opposite - and just growing divides. The tiny percent of people that truly utilize these tools to their potential do become far more able than ever before, but most people don't. And the tool for self improvement instead just becomes a tool to get the answer, leaving them even worse off than before the tool.
If it goes the same as your example for AI then soon people will doubt your knowledge on the grounds of not coming from the assured source. (The ai)
I generally agree with what the OP said: having an instant and correct answering machine available will remove most of the challenge of learning, leaving you completely unable to progress beyond the guided tours also called academic tests / certificates.
But the people talking about the calculator actually have a point, because the only reason to learn math is to understand the concept behind the formula, which can tell you why it works in certain scenarios and not in others. That's usually not what's taught in class however, instead they're made to run through formulas to get a "deeper understanding". And that's pointless beyond training to do exactly that: applying a formula at a pre-selected problem that has a correct answer. This doesn't really transfer to anything you'd do outside of school in any creative profession.
It's perfect for accounting and MBA roles though - even if they're not gonna be doing the calculation themselves, but they Guess identify which formal to apply, so ymmv
For instance imagine something claims to make something bad 90% less likely to happen. People without a mathematical intuition would probably think that means means something goes from being pretty likely to happen to being very unlikely to happen. Of course it means nothing of the sort. Something that is 0.000001% to 0.0000001% is a 90% reduction in probability, but you've gone from absurdly unlikely to absurdly unlikely - for a negligible practical effect.
Or vice versa, if you're investing and think some event is only 2% likely to happen, then many would simply discard it. While failing to consider that such black swan events are arguably the single most important factors in finance. Because you earning a small amount 98% of the time and losing it all 2% of the time, then that means you're going to lose it all on any significant timeframe. See: "hedge" funds continuing to rip off the mathematically naive relative to index funds (which themselves may even provide insufficient security given contemporary issues).
Another would be something like the gambler's fallacy. You're at a roulette wheel and see it's turned up red 17 times in a row. Surely the odds of a black are now way better than 50%, right!?!? Of course not. Such logic is most easily demonstrated with gambling, but it shows up everywhere in real life as well in any field with randomness. For basic mathematics consider something like fertility rates. For those with a strong mathematical intuition fertility rates are absolutely terrifying. For those without such, a fertility rate of 1 and 2 seem pretty much the same - so what's the big deal?
And so on endlessly. Going through life without a mathematical intuition is entirely possible, as most people lack such. But it's akin to going through life colorblind. You simply aren't seeing things that others do, and ideally schools would work to prevent that so much as possible.
- log into HN.
- see an article about it being a giveaway for math teachers to make lesson plans.
- see someone asserting it is an individual math tutor capable of evaluating answers and giving detailed feedback
I agree that messing with child development is a dangerous game, and adding LLMs into the mix raises my eyebrows a bit (especially when kids may not have the common sense to not eat rocks or put glue on a pizza [0]). But in this case, the teacher is still in the loop (for now).
Assuming Microsoft keeps its word and does not transfer learning material back to their servers, can we be reasonably certain that this isn't another CAPTCHA reverse-training exercise?
I'd be interested to see how teachers can use this as a high-speed curation tool. If I were a teacher though, I'd be cautious that in delegating some of the work to a machine, the imaginative/synthesizing part of my brain is now going to go soft (and personally, I'd protect that aspect of my thinking at all costs).
In reality, modern society has plenty, plenty, plenty of obstacles for every age group. Our priority should be eliminating them, not worrying about having too few of them.
The sheer mountain of existing knowledge that we have built up, is sufficient cause to use AI assisted teaching. Children in the future, will not only learn physics, chemistry, computers, history, language etc, but will also learn carpentry, cooking, personal finances etc, all helped out by the drastic efficiency leap from 1-1 personalized AI tutors.
This is a tool for teachers that is now free. Maybe I’m an idiot, but that sounds good to me. Give teachers all the things because we sure as shit aren’t paying them enough.
I’m totally on board making students do things by hand when they’re learning, but that isn’t what this is.
I really don't get this. Here, I assume the median intelligence of a reader is enough to connect the dots already. But sadly, critical thinking is met with the usual jerk knee reaction algorithm.
You started by insulting all Americans for cybertrucks even though they aren’t popular.
Then you called me stupid because I can’t connect the dots of your incoherent ramblings.
I suggest you spend less time condescending and more time checking your grammar.
Have a nice weekend.