←back to thread

222 points dougb5 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
justaguitarist ◴[] No.45126131[source]
I'm a sysadmin for a public school district and the admins are working on rolling out Gemini for students/staff. I've shared all the studies I can find about cognitive decline associated with LLM use, but it seems like it's falling on deaf ears.
replies(5): >>45126679 #>>45126978 #>>45131048 #>>45131087 #>>45135103 #
EvanAnderson ◴[] No.45131087[source]
I do contract network admin work for a K-12 school district and I'm hearing the same thing from the in-house sysadmin about his administration staff. The District superintendent is very enthusiastic about getting LLM tools into the hands of the students and teachers. The in-house sysadmin and I are both horrified at what we're enabling.
replies(1): >>45134620 #
Jimmc414 ◴[] No.45134620[source]
Respectfully, do you think you are helping K-12 students by withholding exposure to an AI world they will soon be expected to be competitive in?
replies(1): >>45136587 #
noisy_boy ◴[] No.45136587[source]
When google came around it took me about 10 minutes to figure out how to use it. Further when I saw things in the search results that didn't make sense or were plainly wrong, I had the pre-gpogle critical faculty to question things.

Do you think we are helping K-12 students by letting AI doing hallucinated thinking for them? What incredible "AI skills" will they be missing out on if we restrict the exposure? How to type things in a text box and adjust your question until you get what you want?

replies(1): >>45139887 #
Jimmc414 ◴[] No.45139887[source]
The google comparison is superficial. The skill needed is understanding what different modes of AI can and cant do across different domains, knowing when to use it vs when not to, developing judgment about AI content that goes beyond simple fact retrieval.

We are creating a massive competency gap by treating AI exposure as somehow more dangerous than social media, which we've already allowed to reshape adolescent development with inarguably negative educational value.

AI is already redefining job requirements and academic expectations. Students who first encounter these tools in college will be competing against peers who've had years to develop working usage patterns and build domain specific applications.

replies(2): >>45143265 #>>45145087 #
1. EvanAnderson ◴[] No.45143265{3}[source]
I'm all for students learning the technology that makes LLMs work. That would go a long way, I suspect, toward students understanding what problems LLMs are a good fit for.

Likewise, using LLMs as an API for software they create to call sounds like it would give them insight into what LLMs are good for.

The act of just "conversing" with an LLM doesn't seem like much of a skill. I find it hard to reconcile the idea that one needs training or experience to use an LLM when contrasted with how LLM products are being advertised to the "everyman".

I simply don't buy that there's skill associated with using LLMs as an end user beyond the skills that you'd use for checking the validity of any other source. (Granted, everybody is pretty terrible at that anyway.) If anything, the LLM should be treated with more skepticism and subjected to more fact checking than human-created or curated sources.

The level of public LLM adoption tells me that they're not hard to use. The companies who make them are doing their best to make them useful for everyone. Any "moat" created by having "skills" associated with using an LLM will be drained. The companies want them to be useful to everyone, not just to people with "skills".

re: social media

Personally, I see "social media" as vastly more deleterious than LLMs alone. ("Social media" and LLMs, together, are a force-multiplier of badness.)

I already don't think there should be a place in schools for "social media", in terms of a curricular subject. I'd appalled if administrators approached "social media" as a part of the curriculum with the enthusiasm I'm seeing for LLMs.