←back to thread

648 points bradgessler | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
don_neufeld ◴[] No.44009004[source]
Completely agree.

From all of my observations, the impact of LLMs on human thought quality appears largely corrosive.

I’m very glad my kid’s school has hardcore banned them. In some class they only allow students to turn in work that was done in class, under the direct observation of the teacher. There has also been a significant increase in “on paper” work vs work done on computer.

Lest you wonder “what does this guy know anyways?”, I’ll share that I grew up in a household where both parents were professors of education.

Understanding the effectiveness of different methods of learning (my dad literally taught Science Methods) were a frequent topic. Active learning (creating things using what you’re learning about) is so much more effective than passive, reception oriented methods. I think LLMs largely are supporting the latter.

replies(6): >>44009388 #>>44010296 #>>44010436 #>>44010768 #>>44011460 #>>44011653 #
zdragnar ◴[] No.44009388[source]
Anyone who has learned a second language can tell you that you aren't proficient just by memorizing vocabulary and grammar. Having a conversation and forming sentences on the fly just feels different- either as a different skill or using a different part of the brain.

I also don't think the nature of LLMs being a negative crutch is new knowledge per se; when I was in school, calculus class required a graphing calculator but the higher end models (TI-92 etc) that had symbolic equation solvers were also banned, for exactly the same reason. Having something that can give an answer for you fundamentally undermines the value of the exercise in the first place, and cripples your growth while you use it.

replies(7): >>44010037 #>>44010438 #>>44010583 #>>44011356 #>>44011906 #>>44011951 #>>44012226 #
JackFr ◴[] No.44010583[source]
Well I can extract a square root by hand. We all had to learn it and got tested on it.

No one to day learns that anymore. The vast, vast majority have no idea and I don’t think people are dumber because of it.

That is to say, I think it’s not cut-and-dried. I agree you need to learn something, but something’s it’s okay use a tool.

replies(8): >>44011051 #>>44011054 #>>44011314 #>>44011531 #>>44011663 #>>44011755 #>>44012218 #>>44013628 #
mistercow ◴[] No.44013628[source]
> No one to day learns that anymore. The vast, vast majority have no idea and I don’t think people are dumber because of it.

Arguably, the kind of person who was helped by learning to do that by hand still learns to do it by hand, but because of curiosity rather than because a teacher told them to.

I remember being thirteen and trying to brute force methods for computing the square root. I didn’t have the tools yet to figure out how to do it in any systematic way, and the internet wasn’t at a point yet where it would have even occurred to me to just search online. Wikipedia wouldn’t exist for another two years.

I probably finally looked it up at some point in high school. I’m not sure exactly when, but I remember spending a lot of time practicing doing a few iterations in my head as a parlor trick (not that I ever had the opportunity to show it off).

If I were thirteen and curious about that now, I’d probably just ask ChatGPT. Then I’d have a whole follow up conversation about how it was derived. It would spit a lot of intimidating LaTeX at me, but unlike with Wikipedia, I’d be able to ask it to explain what those things meant.

This is the thing I don’t get when people talk about LLMs’ impact on education. Everybody focuses on cheating, like learning is inherently a chore that all students hate and must be carefully herded into doing despite themselves.

But that’s a problem with school, not learning. If your actual, self-motivated goal is to learn something, LLM’s are an incredible tool, not a hindrance.

replies(1): >>44014956 #
1. gofreddygo ◴[] No.44014956{3}[source]
you put my thoughts into words I couldn't.

Any school's #1 job is to motivate learning. Schools clearly suck at this.

LLMs are a fascinating effective learning tool. early learning would be better off embracing it as such.

i imagine a combination of a video of a good tutor explaining a concept followed up with an llm to quiz and explain the concept seems far better than what we have today.

replies(1): >>44015040 #
2. mistercow ◴[] No.44015040[source]
I think we need to find a way to teach without grades. That is, we do know how to teach without grades at younger levels, and many schools do it successfully.

The problem is that eventually you need to measure for placement, and Goodhart’s Law kicks in and destroys the enjoyment of learning. It’s very hard to be intrinsically motivated when the external pressure dominates.

The fact that “study for the test” is basically synonymous with “study” for most people is indicative that we’re doing something extremely wrong in education.

replies(1): >>44016694 #
3. Grosvenor ◴[] No.44016694[source]
> The problem is that eventually you need to measure for placement Why do you need to be "placed"? I know the answer - resources.

But why can't each individual have sort of their own bespoke governess tutoring them all through school? Pay Gilbert Strang a million dollars to do a 32 week course in LinAlg. Yes I know a normal course is shorter, expand it to cover everything in exquisite detail, so even I can keep up. Alan Kay, Donald Knuth, and John Carmack can teach computer science. Continue on for each subject.

Then let students go as fast as they want. I'd have finished some subjects of HS by the time I was in 9th grade, and others I might still be trying. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Where you'd still need to be "placed" is social development. Which I think should actually be a subject.