Hacker News Reader

Comment by kmitz | Hacker News Reader

PISA data show that students who use AI for specific schoolwork tasks, such as summarising texts, drafting or conducting research, attain lower scores in science than students who do not use AI.

See graphs on PISA 2025 homepage : https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/pisa-2025-results-volum...

So much for all the EdTech startups that want you to use their AI teachers. Seriously, this should be a major signal to keep screens and AI solutions out of classrooms. That's not solving everything but at least students would be given a few hours window of de-brainroting everyday. I'm open to accept that AI can have a positive impact on education but people and tools are apparently not ready and for the moment using it is a net negative.

View on HN

> So much for all the EdTech startups that want you to use their AI teachers.

The AI they’re talking about is not EdTech AI-based teaching tools. It’s students who use ChatGPT to handle work for them so they can ignore any teaching parts.

Apples and oranges. Using this study to draw conclusions about AI EdTech would be a mistake

> So much for all the EdTech startups that want you to use their AI teachers.

Kid pasting the question into ChatGPT and pasting its answer back is not the same as an AI teacher persona.

In my mind an AI teacher can be like a traditional education package (syllabus, material, questions, keeping track of progression) but way more flexible. I don't see no reason why AI teachers shouldn't give Bloom's 2 sigma effect to kids (and adults) very soon.

> In my mind an AI teacher can be like a traditional education package (syllabus, material, questions, keeping track of progression) but way more flexible. I don't see no reason why AI teachers shouldn't give Bloom's 2 sigma effect to kids (and adults) very soon.

I think it's a double-edged sword.

I think some kids will absolutely use it that way, and it turns out to be revolutionary for them. Kids who couldn't afford a tutor now can have one.

But also, there will be kids that think they will do this, and they don't. Instead, they end up talking the AI into letting them off the hook of learning things for themselves, and society pays for the AI tutor while get nothing in return.

When I look at young people today, that's what I see. Some teenagers seem to have a college degree via self-study, while many others have completely fried their brains, while looking into the same devices for the same amount of time.

Sloppy conclusion about edtech startups.

If everyone is hiring a "tutor" to just do their homework for them, that doesn't mean that all tutors are bad.

There’s many books and established schools of thought about computers being terrible for learning even before the latest wave AI edtech nonsense.

Simply put, there’s nothing better than old school pen to paper.

The biggest speedbump to that is teacher time. Grading and returning worksheets for students is a huge unpaid time sink for teachers.

As you say, like most of any of our current issues, it's not the act of doing something that is the issue, it's the lack of remuneration for doing that thing. Any region would gain an immense amount of more "smart point metrics" (what I choose to refer these scores as) if students had their own personal tutors that helped them along. But that doesn't fit our "profit or perish" economic models.

It's not just compensation grading is a very time intensive process so even if it were paid it eats up either personal time or time they could use preparing lessons or assisting students.

I have a master's in education technology.

There's no "simply put" here. Your position is not obvious, established, or universal and this is not simple.

The "AI use ... To help me learn" graph is really interesting! It may be interpreted as showing moderate selective AI use being beneficial and, perhaps, even mitigating the effect of socioeconomic status, that is democratising the learning of science. However, it may also indicated that groups with low AI use/access are left behind, or at least that over-reliance on AI in learning is detrimental.

The breakdown for AI usage is four categories though, not three. While the first three are negatively correlated with increased usage, the one for using AI "to help me learn" is much more flat when it comes to usage frequency.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com