He raises an important point that human learning is continuous and to some extent unavoidable, unlike LLMs (and basically most computing models) which freeze at some point, and as amazing as they can appear, do not update with each interaction (and more or less his point is that even if some system did start updating weights after each interaction, whether that is learning from mistakes or just a model with 1000001 examples instead of 1000000 is debatable.

But the argument that we should not learn while young because "It's not useful to us then" is a ridiculous premise to argue with. Perhaps I misunderstand it. Then saying that things benefit us far down the road, long after the original moment of learning...

I don't understand this line of thinking at all. Linking this to "educability" as a sort of hidden superpower makes me say "oh, really now?".

Like most scientists, he has to focus his ideas on a track with research directions which expand outwards, excite, and provide new directions and conversationality. He may not be aware of doing this.

Rare is the day when we see a psychologist studying things like how applying a new learning technique to class A effects all the other classes the student takes.

Rare is it we study flow state and motivation of the long term and find meaningful ways at a cohort intra-country level to increase happiness at school or final grades across the board, rather than just one course which the researchers focus on. And when that has been done in Scandinavia, who lead in PISA and happiness as adults and teens, scientists in the US ignore the research by and large. It's sad.

This is what I don't like about education research and theories. They can be worthwhile research directions, but diminished to theorizing, rather than application.