As with most training the journey is the point, not the destination.
That said, I think smart use of AI could help. It could explain concepts in a way that might help you understand better, it could probe your knowledge in a more dynamic way by tailoring questions, and so on. This requires the AI be restrained by some harness, not free to write down the answers for you.
People say that all the time, but does anyone really think a lack of good explanations for things is a limiting factor in 2026? Or even 2010?
Kids won't be using LLM tooling as a personal tutor following some sort of Socratic method, they'll ask it to solve their home/coursework for them and blindly copy/paste the answer. Hell, they'll just manually copy down what's on their screen if copy/pasting isn't possible for whatever reason.
Obviously exceptions exist, but I'd wager from being an ex-kid myself the type of kid who would genuinely use these tools for actual proper self-tutoring would be an extreme rarity.
AI gives you a way to get the same help without asking another human. Say of that what you will, but not everyone was comfortable asking other humans for help even back then.
The act of building the mental muscle is what creates education.
How would this magic harness look like and why would anyone use it?
Put that in your agents.md.
I meant: what's going to stop the average lazy student from ignoring whatever harness the university recommends and instead use an unrestricted LLM, thus learning nothing?
Nothing until they start failing exams and maybe seeing the error of their ways. My suggestions wasn't for you, it was for the smart student who wants to use AI to enhance their learning but not have it do all the work.
But cheating isn't new. People have been cheating in school for centuries. It's easier now, but the consequences were always the same. At some point the chickens come home to roost and you pay the piper.
My concern is that with LLMs and above average bullshitting abilities, the chickens might never come home to roost.