←back to thread

323 points timbilt | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.214s | source
Show context
ratedgene ◴[] No.42129665[source]
I was talking to a teacher today that works with me at length about the impact of AI LLM models are having now when considering student's attitude towards learning.

When I was young, I refused to learn geography because we had map applications. I could just look it up. I did the same for anything I could, offload the cognitive overhead to something better -- I think this is something we all do consciously or not.

That attitude seems to be the case for students now, "Why do I need to do this when an LLM can just do it better?"

This led us to the conclusion:

1. How do you construct challenges that AI can't solve? 2. What skills will humans need next?

We talked about "critical thinking", "creative problem solving", and "comprehension of complex systems" as the next step, but even when discussing this, how long will it be until more models or workflows catch up?

I think this should lead to a fundamental shift in how we work WITH AI in every facet of education. How can a human be a facilitator and shepherd of the workflows in such a way that can complement the model and grow the human?

I also think there should be more education around basic models and how they work as an introductory course to students of all ages, specifically around the trustworthiness of output from these models.

We'll need to rethink education and what we really desire from humans to figure out how this makes sense in the face of traditional rituals of education.

replies(12): >>42129683 #>>42129718 #>>42129742 #>>42129844 #>>42130036 #>>42130165 #>>42130200 #>>42130240 #>>42130245 #>>42130568 #>>42135482 #>>42137623 #
nonameiguess ◴[] No.42130165[source]
I think at a certain point, you either value having your own skills and knowledge, or you don't. You may as well ask why anyone bothers learning to throw a baseball when they could just offload to a pitching machine.

And I get it. Pitchers who go pro get paid a lot and aren't allowed to use machines, so that's a hell of an incentive, but the vast majority of kids who ever pick up a baseball are never going to go pro, are never even going to try to go pro, and just enjoy playing the game.

It's fair to say many, if not most, students don't enjoy writing the way kids enjoy playing games, but at the same time, the point was mostly never mastering the five paragraph thesis format anyway. The point was learning to learn, about arbitrary topics, well enough to the point that you could write a reasonably well-argued paper about it. Even if a machine can do the writing for you, it can't do the learning for you. There's either value in having knowledge in your own brain or there isn't. If there isn't, then there never was, and AI didn't change that. You always could have paid or bullied the smarter kids into doing the work for you.

replies(3): >>42130981 #>>42132454 #>>42133531 #
1. ratedgene ◴[] No.42130981[source]
So maybe if there isn't a perceived value in the way we learn, then how learning is taught should maybe change to keep itself relevant as it's not about what we learn, but how we learn to learn.