I honestly don't understand what we're discussing/debating? It feels like you think I'm countering your postition but I'm not.
I'm tired of people echoing a common trope that somehow LLMs replace critical thinking or steal learning opportunities from students - they do the opposite. They provide students more opportunities to sharpen their critical thinking and democratize learning.
In your parent post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49225068), you asserted that "These are all useful skills, even in a post-LLM world.": I agreed with you, and proposed that you could use an LLM to debate you and furthur hone that skill because you certainly don't have unlimited time with a skilled human teacher but for $20/mo, you could debate a frontier model as long as you're awake, all day long.
Your research seems to be supporting what I just said, does it not?
> Indeed, LLMs can be helpful as an alternative to a teacher, if thought of as a sophist (I have even done research on this [0]). But that is not the approach you are proposing.
What according to you, did I propose instead?
I also need further clarification on the term "sophist", because in the US and the UK, it means a person who is "misusing" logic and attempting to deceive their opponents using trickery instead of an honest debate that centers around the objective truth. Their sole objective is to "win" a debate rather than appreciate debate itself or the merits of the topic itself. I believe, even in ancient history, Plato heavily criticized them.
For example: If we were debating whether child labor is wrong, a sophist who was put in a position "for" the topic would then argue there are good reasons why child labor is good. A "true" debator would concede that they could not support child labor and would not debate for the topic.
Is that what you meant by the term "sophist"? Or does "sophist" mean a "Debate Coach" or "Instructor of Rhetoric" or "teacher who excels in the art of debating"? If you meant "Debate Coach" but it sounds too simplistic, may I propose we use "Forensics Instructor" - because the term "sophist" in modern English certainly doesn't communicate that and its use will lead to confusion.
> then LLMs doing the hard work of identifying the gaps in their logic is counter-intuitive
Your use of the phrase "counter-intuitive" is unclear to me. Do you mean to say that:
1. it's actually a good idea that can certainly provide great outcomes but doesn't occur to a lot of people, or
2. that it's not a good idea at all because it just doesn't work?
3. something else?