A decade ago, a google search for study guides written by another professor would have been slightly slower. A decade before that, you'd be even slower fumbling through several books. Every single word could at least be trusted. You don't get that from an LLM.
The fundamental service a teacher provides is personalized feedback, quickly identifying where you are stuck and focusing the explanations and exercises on that area, drastically increasing the speed and quality of learning versus the self-supervised route.
The lack of this closed loop effectively killed the high hopes that were placed in e-learning and MOOCs 15-20 years ago, TV learning in the 1960s and many other failed revolutions, seems every generation has its own version.
It appears to me LLMs have a real potential to close this loop and become the failed educational revolution of our own generation.
This has been a huge blocker when I tried to study advanced math myself. Many of the exercise books don't have worked out answers, so often you're either stuck or you have to hunt a variety of sources online for solutions and advice. It kills flow.
It is also significantly more engaging and fun.
The scientific basis for this statement is unclear.
Is it? Actually this seems like one of the MOST clear aspects of LLM performance we can measure.
I wonder how long before LLMs need to cash in and even simple prompts are beyond the non-existent budget of a student. Which means it will need to be subsidized by education... and we're back in the teacher loop once again.
Or perhaps libraries. That would be neat.
>It is also significantly more engaging and fun.
That won't last long either. I remember when phone apps were the "engaging and fun ways to learn". Half life of 2 years, and we're already seeing people lose the fun factor.