Jonathan Haidt: AI Is the 'Neutron Bomb for Education' [video]

I reckon it's a similar issue to wikipedia when that became a resource available to us in school. Being taught how to use AI as a resource as opposed to 'the source' is the critical distinction. Which I guess is also the same issue when it comes to professionals and how they use AI

The push for AI adoption in K-8 is the one that strikes me as wrong. The Alpha School and other initiatives are pushing AI on groups for which we have dubious measures of impact. Ostensibly, they are doing this to avoid pushback from traditional curriculum requirements in high school and university - but those kids are going to end up there eventually.

Why would I believe that someone who can't use a mouse/computer is ready to be taught by AI?

> AI merely exposes the inherent flaws in how we do education ... The knee-jerk reaction of banning AI is probably the wrong choice, people need to learn where the limits are

But you can't do that without a certain level of maturity.

> but I also wouldn't be able to suggest a framework where students aren't rewarded for skirting around being educated.

Well, then "knee-jerk" ban AI in schools... until you can suggest such a framework, and test it to show it works, and roll it out at a society-wide level.

Until then, you're just handing kids flamethrowers in a highly flammable environment, and saying "we'll just figure out the problems later."

This is objectively false. AI stunts and reduces the learning process. Banning it is 100% the right move.

The word 'graduation', regarding education, somehow lost its original meaning -- to measure peers against one another -- its sinister edge can be easily visualized by imagining a class of graduates stuffed into giant graduated cylinders clearly showing their achievements with etched gradations along their respective tubes. It is difficult for society to consider this process as the, or major contributor to the, problem of education rather than AI. I tend toward the belief that we place too much value upon these highly dubious and artificial systems of academic assessment; AI is providing a long overdue opportunity to evaluate the excesses and weaknesses of institutional education.

The big problem with education is that all the work is done for grades instead of aiming to deliver value to others. It's important for students to practice but if you raise the bar high enough then AI is just one tool that helps you but doesn't have all the answers. If AI can do all the homework we have to ask ourselves how much value the homework had in the first place.

> AI merely exposes the inherent flaws in how we do education (exams, especially failure) [...] but I also wouldn't be able to suggest a framework where students aren't rewarded for skirting around being educated

As someone who graduated from college in the 2000s, I've been surprised to hear from recently-graduated colleagues that doing exams in person is no longer the default. That strikes me as the obvious first line solution for (at least) the STEM subjects that lend themselves to exams centered around technical problem-solving: exams in person, no phones or similarly capable devices, cheaters get a failing grade with no possibility for appeal.

The conventional wisdom when I was in school was that classes where homework isn't graded aren't really any easier for most students, because the homework is where you learn the skills, and if you don't do it then you'll fail the exams. Frankly, the same will be true either way for students who use LLMs for all the exercises: they won't learn the skills, and they will fail the exams. This is a working-as-intended outcome.

So why not start there? It's how school has ~always worked, so there's no question of feasibility. The only question is whether our will to give committed students a real education is stronger than our desire to productize education as a rent extraction scheme tailored to a nepotistic and shallowly credentials-obsessed society where having 'B.Sc.' on your resume sorts you one bucket higher in the algorithmic hiring queue to flip burgers at your local McDonald's.

---

It's less obvious how to fix the humanities subjects where take-home writing assignments carry most of a student's grade, though I'm tempted to think that even a relatively simple and tightly scoped writing exercise given as an in-person exam could conclusively weed out most of the students who've been relying on LLMs to do the assignments for them.

Haidt is one of those political conservatives who calls themselves a centrist or moderate. He and the host David Brooks are both in the Epstein files, the latter described in the files as one of the biggest supporters of the Epstein backed EDGE foundation (with Haidt name dropped in the same email).

Speaking personally, YMMV, but I hear either name and I'm immediately skeptical.

[delayed]

Name me someone who has a great track record when it comes to such topics. The criticism cited in Wikipedia is totally unsubstantiated.

> For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.

While I doubt it's a boost in anything but productivity, the negatives are simply too great to ignore.

> For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost.

Exactly. The educational system needs to be reformed to exalt and celebrate the minority boosted AI, and quickly shuttle those harmed into the trash. Our North Star needs to be AI technology and the returns of investors who support it. Everything else, including human beings, are unimportant and expendable. Tech first!

As someone who's read all of his books and experienced the generations being studied I'd say he's been spot on and is extremely knowledgeable. One study that does not propose alternative views and cites "selling a lot of books" comes off to me as someone with an agenda. No thanks.

Haidt is first on my personal list of "people who don't really know what they're talking about but who I nonetheless mostly agree with." The "If Books Could Kill" show did a good episode about some of his works that indicate he has a fairly nonrigorous methodology and implements some iffy statistical controls to support what is probably a pre-conceived viewpoint. He doesn't have the best reputation in the academic space he operates within.

That being said, this stuff is hard to study, and I have no doubt that things like social media and AI are bad for a developing brain even if you can't arrive at a statistically satisfying conclusion. I can tell that this shit is bad for me, and I'm a fully grown man.

Wikipedia is fair to cite Odgers's review. But the nature of the available evidence means that Odgers would be overstating her case to say that Haidt's theory is conclusively wrong, and Haidt would be overstating his case if he claimed to be conclusively right.

You see, the effect on social media on socialization has two parts. The first is the direct effect on an individual caused by their own use of social media. The second is the effect on an individual's social environment when everyone around them is on social media. The first effect is difficult but basically feasible to study. The second effect is downright wicked. So dismissing evidence that hints at the second effect as being "mere correlation that disappears under scrutiny" is not valid reasoning when your process of scrutiny focuses on the first effect.

In social science you have to accept reasoning from incomplete data. You won't always have the answers. I don't think Haidt really stands above or below his peers in any category except notoriety. Of course anyone who has worked with scientists knows to be a little suspicious of a researcher who seems to enjoy being in the public eye. But as the public eye, we're still stuck with them.