Hacker News Reader

Comment by Aboutplants | Hacker News Reader

The older I get the more I realize “moderation in everything” is the key to success and happiness. Moderation in the sense of using or consuming something to only a certain degree.

In this case, education, the answer is in the middle. It’s exploring and utilizing new tools while ensuring the base foundation of education. It’s really simple.

Apply “moderation” to nearly any facet of your life and it’s probably the correct choice. Want to consume alcohol? Moderate consumption. Enjoy TikTok or other video entertainment? Moderation. Work? Don’t destroy yourself, moderate extreme effort.

This isn’t to say don’t follow passions or pursue things to a moderate extreme, just don’t ever let it consume you.

View on HN

I don’t know about moderation but optimization is the mother of all evil. All extremists are actually optimization agents. Let one run for too long and you greatly loose on everything.

So I don’t think that we should meet a middle ground necessarily but wary of people that are trying to maxxx something.

Just be wary that you might not like the middle ground between a serial killer and someone wbo insists all human life is sacred.

There’s no middle ground, just that the serial killers and the people who insist that all human life is sacred are both destructive assuming that the sacred lifers take it to the extreme(i.e. try to force all resources and politics into saving all life whatever it takes).

An imo even better example is death penalty.

Some people are not redeemable. Abolishing the death penalty is a mistake.

Another even less controversial example is providing adults and elderly euthanasia under certain circumstances.

>Some people are not redeemable.

I agree entirely.

>Abolishing the death penalty is a mistake.

Unless we can devise a method of perfectly determining guilt, there will always be some false convictions. Personally, I’m not comfortable with executing innocent people. If that means keeping irredeemable killers alive in prison, I’m ok with that.

Moderation in fentanyl, too? Some habits are arguably just vices, that have few justifiable middle grounds.

Are you seriously trying to compare “AI” in education to fentanyl?

The difference between AI robbing you of learning opportunities and acting as a tutor or sounding board is what question you ask.

No I'm arguing against the false fairness in moderation in anything. It's just not correct. (Though I do sense a sort of cognitive fent fold in certain heavy AI-users, so maybe I should)

Do you think that moderation when it comes to AI in education is not correct?

Not really, at least not without restructuring the educational system completely.

AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught, like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage, so why should children need such a thing? Besides, it interferes with how we teach, which is done by having students write things in their own words (which is just "that which I can't explain, I don't understand", instrumentalized). It's not the essay that is the point, it's probably kinda shit, but the point is the fact that you are writing it. If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn. It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment.

If we can use AI as an expert teacher with infinite time for each child, that does theoretically have promise (per bloom 2sigma). But it's also quite far away with what we've got right now.

We'll put aside where AI usage is a skill that needs to be taught (which I think there is definitely room for teaching people how to use it effectively as a tool) since that isn't what the discussion is about.

The article's talking about the use of AI learning rather than learning how to use AI.

> If AI does that work for them, then they simply don't learn.

I agree, and I think the original commenter would agree too given that this doesn't sounds like moderation.

The no-ai end is "you write the whole essay yourself" the all-in end is "you give the ai and idea and have it write the essay". The moderation approach is somewhere in-between and it could very well be "you write the essay and ask the AI to proofread and coach you through it".

> It's largely the same reason we don't let children use calculators when they're learning basic arithmetic. Calculators exist, and are useful, but they're awful in a teaching environment.

Yes, having the ai act as a calculator when you need to learn and prove you can do it is a bad use of it. Having the Ai double check your work to catch errors, point out when you make the same mistake over and over, or ask it to walk you through another example are all productive uses.

No you kinda need to actually write the thing yourself. It's the struggle of writing that is the entire point, going through that is what teaches you the material.

Any time you reach for AI to make it easier, you're missing out on understanding and retention. If you cannot express the thing in your own words, then you do not understand it.

Just as you don't learn anything by copying someone else's homework, or expanding on someone else's summary (like if that worked, that's how we'd be doing already, holy crap would it accelerate teaching), the same doesn't work when AI is involved.

Again, it's not the essay that is the point, it's the work that goes into writing it. You need to hand it in so that the teacher understand where to put in more effort, but if it wasn't for that need, they'd probably have you throw it away after writing it. Because of this, AI even for finishing touches makes it harder for the teacher to assess your level, and the polish it brings doesn't actually help you learn.

> You need to hand it in so that the teacher understand where to put in more effort, but if it wasn't for that need, they'd probably have you throw it away after writing it.

I am not sure how your literature classes went, but all of my essays were graded and feedback was provided to me specifically so I can get better. Perhaps my previously reply was too long winded, but feedback on your essay on how to improve it is the exact use case I gave as an example.

Sure, let's say you used AI to correct your mistakes before you submitted it, now you can't get that feedback, and again, you're missing out on learning.

Why would I be missing out on learning? If I want to improve my writing, why does it matter that if it’s Word, ChatGPT, or a teaching telling me that my spelling is wrong? Or that I keep making comma splice errors? Or that I have run on sentences?

Your teacher needs to understand your level to provide you with further instruction that is suitable for your level. If you show them what ChatGPT wrote, then they're working completely blind, and the education is equivalent to watching a series of youtube lectures.

Not that it's impossible to learn a subject that way, it just requires extremely self-motivated students.

"AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught"

At this point that's like saying Microsoft Excel isn't a skill that needs to be taught.

None of this stuff is easy to use, or obvious. If you want to get meaningful results out of it and avoid the many, many traps then there is an absolute ton you need to learn.

In the context of this conversation, the skill that needs to be learned is how to use AI to learn effectively. That gets into pedagogy and personal learning styles and self-discipline and all sorts of other extremely gnarly areas.

Isn't the industry's idea that 'prompt engineering' is over and anyone can use this stuff effectively?

There seems to be a literal trap where people are too trusting of the LLM and take its word on code or whatever is being offered instead of reading it themselves.

In the context of the classroom this means teaching discernment more than ever.

Well let's say that is true, and we do teach a class of kids how to use AI, how much of that will still be applicable by the time they enter the work force?

The bits about learning to communicate in clear and unambiguous way, having a skeptical ear and knowing when to double-check information that is being presented to them, and understanding how to use tools in a way that enhance their own learning should ideally last a lifetime.

Communicating in a clear unambiguous way doesn't actually help with using llms.

Disagree. Many people are really bad at clear communication. It doesn't matter how good an LLM gets, it will still be less effective to use it if you give it prompts with no single obvious meaning - you'll have to go a few extra rounds with it asking clarifying questions, or it will go ahead and do a thing you didn't mean it to do because your instructions could be reasonably interpreted another way.

I don't like the conflation of terms, but they're obviously referring to LLMs, which are designed to use natural language prompts. And the integration of LLMs into Excel means that to some degree Excel doesn't need to be taught anymore.

> AI really isn't a skill that needs to be taught

Given how much time I spend teaching people how to use AI effectively, I humbly disagree.

AI slop is not using AI effectively.

> like adults didn't need to take a semester in AI-usage

… especially adults

> so why should children need such a thing?

So that the scope of merits and demerits of the tool are explicit from the start, and this understanding can evolve along with the tool.

Moderation in everything... including applying the phrase moderation in everything...

Moderation in recreational drugs, which definitely rules out fentanyl?

But yeah, what's moderation and what's excessive is subjective.

Truisms fail when you get to the edge cases. This is well known and you aren't pointing out some massive flaw in their reasoning when it comes comes to classroom AI use.

They weren't responding directly to classroom AI use, they were responding to the parent comment making a general claim about moderation - which included moderation of using Tiktok. My immediate thought was "Tiktok is like meth", would you advocate for moderation of meth?

So I agree with the comment. It was appropriately placed and a valid point. Moderation is key for many things, but there are exceptions. Things that are highly addictive and corrosive may be a good category for exceptions. Things that are clearly bad (e.g. murder) are exceptions.

When someone says "life is as simple as x" and the someon else says "hold on its not that simple, what about this exception" that latter rebuttal is valid and constructive.

>"Tiktok is like meth", would you advocate for moderation of meth?

This is an absurd statement. If someone is trying to talk about the middle cases, redirecting the conversation to the edge in order to dismiss their general comment is not appropriate.

'Edge cases exist' is not a lesson most people here need to hear.

I'm not even sure it's demonstrable that all things are good in moderation. There is a very large class of things that simply aren't good in moderation.

This leaves it generously a thought teminating cliche devoid of meaning, certainly nothing you should be making decisions off.

All generalizations are fragile at the edge cases, that doesn't make them pointless, especially if you know they are generalizations.

This just isn't a good generalization though. It would be easier to enumerate the few things it does apply to than the manifold that it doesn't.

It fails in every direction, not just stepping on legos and murder. It's in no way better to be moderately happy or healthy than extremely happy or healthy.

Explain what a "good generalization" would be to you?

I'm not who you asked, but here are what good generalizations are to me:

1) days contain more photons than nights

2) water boils at 100 degrees Celsius

3) eating excessive sugar will lead to obesity

They seem like good generalizations because they are true most of the time from the perspective of the speaker and listener, even thought there may be some exceptions, they are materially more rare:

1) except in multi-solar systems, where this can get complicated

2) except when under pressures different than approximately sea level atmosphere

3) except when ___ I'm not sure but I bet there is some medical exception, maybe excessive exercise?

Bad generalizations will have many many exceptions such that the generalizations is materially lossy and even dangerous (e.g. "everything in moderation" -> murder in moderation, meth in moderation, punching grandmas in the face in moderation, etc.)

> murder in moderation, meth in moderation, punching grandmas in the face in moderation

I know these are your extreme examples but this is literally how society functions in each one.

Meth in moderation = prescription stimulants for ADHD or narcolepsy.

Murder in moderation = war, capital punishment.

Punching grandmas in the face in moderation = arrests of shoplifters or intoxicated grandmas apparently require physical restraint, lots of possible examples of violence for purported good on youtube.

Each of your hard lines are things that literally happen daily around the world, in moderation.

Okay, I'm coming around to your point that "everything in moderation" is a reasonable generalization.

My gut still says it's easily misinterpreted and can be used as justification to do something that shouldn't be. It has something to do with scope of applicability, but to be fair that's true of my other "good" examples as well (e.g. water boiling at different temperatures / pressures).

My instinctive "hold on a minute" was the assumption "everything in moderation" was not a good generalization when applied to everyone as individuals rather than more broadly/universally.

I suspect others that took issue had a similar misalignment in scope. (Fentanyl in moderation for a drug addict is not sustainable, fentanyl in moderation for a non-addict recovering from surgery, probably good)

I feel like I've stumbled into some philosophy tar pit - questioning the meaning of generalization, moderation, scope, good judgement and "everything"... so I'll just concede for now, despite feeling uneasy about it.

I mean, it worked reasonably well for my father while he was as recovering from his knee replacement. Fentanyl patches that gave a precise time-released dose.

Fentanyl is used in hospitals for pain management, so yes.

Moderation in recreational fentanyl then?

I dunno about everyine else but if someone else wants to then yes. If they can get clean product for proper dosing then it is already safer and better for everyone involved.

For what it's worth, my understanding is that fentanyl is pretty bad as a recreational drug, which is why it started as a scam for people looking for heroin. It's too strong as an anesthetic and the effect lasts very little.

Sure. Fentanyl should neither be completely banned from the nation nor easily obtained OTC by anyone. We should keep it available for things like epidurals.

Moderation in fentanyl.

Fentanyl is on the WHO list of essential medicines and widely used for anesthesia in medical settings.

Perhaps try looking up the thing you are talking about before making a moral judgement based on mass media soundbites.

What a curiously defensive way to respond. Did I strike a nerve?

Yes. For example only when prescribed by your doctor. Or you could undergo the surgery without any pain killers if they are so bad?

>This isn’t to say don’t follow passions or pursue things to a moderate extreme, just don’t ever let it consume you.

Just moderate your moderation! It’s turtles all the way down

I like the idea "everything in moderation -- including moderation" (implying it's healthy to occasionally go nuts)

same. the older I get, the more I appreciate the "middle of the world" attitude in classical Chinese teachings. there's no single approach that's always / universally right. so it's wise to avoid going to the extreme in any direction

This is called the golden mean fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Argumen...

What I've found as I get older is that when someone says "It’s really simple," that's a good sign it isn't.

Something can be really simple, yet very hard. Like saving money or losing fat and building muscles.

I don't know what that means. Building muscle involves incredibly complicated biological processes, there's nothing "simple" about it. In the parent comment the "simple" advice is also fallacious.

We don't need to know all the intricacies of how something happens behind the scenes. The actual task of how to do to it is very simple.

You keep redefining "simple" to make it work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com