6 ms·

The reality is, most 5 year olds don’t get access to the resources most of us have had while growing up. People are saying, “kids should have human tutors.” Guy

• afry1 2mo ago
  Most of them don't get access. So let's hook them up to an insane, unproven, unpredictable autocomplete math equation and entrust it to their development as a human being. So gross.
  • jph00 2mo ago
    Heaven forbid we let poor people use software that helps their kids read. If they can't afford a tutor, they deserve nothing. (Am I doing this right?)
    • bluefirebrand 2mo ago
      We could encourage parents to take an active role in tutoring their kids but I guess that's just entirely out of the question? Nah. Let's have AI do it
      • CaptWorld 2mo ago
        Yeah tell them to change things.. why didn't we think of that? Provide opportunities to make parenting less stressful like here so that they can involve more.. this reflexive anti AI luddite attitude isn't productive as it's just less signal and more noise..
        • forgetfreeman 2mo ago
          "reflexive anti AI luddite attitude" That's awfully reductive there, champ. Most critiques of AI are based on some combination of observed failings of the technology, observed failings of the tech industry writ large, and healthy skepticism in the face of Yet Another Tech Industry Hype Typhoon. Anyway, the burden of proof isn't on skeptics, it's on the technology and it's proponents, so let's see some receipts before we agree to squander limited public resources on unproven systems yeah?
          • logicchains 2mo ago
            >Most critiques of AI are based on some combination of observed failings of the technology Most critiques of AI are based on experience with the cheapest AI available a year ago, by midwits unable to recognize that AI's performance on the Putnam, IMO and bar exam makes it far smarter than they are by almost every metric that was traditionally used to measure intelligence.
            • bluefirebrand 2mo ago
              > Most critiques of AI are based on experience with the cheapest AI available a year ago, by midwits You don't even need to use AI at all to have valid critiques of it Plenty of other people are showing its flaws daily by replacing their entire personalities with AI slop Oh it can do some impressive stuff sure. It is still bad for society
              • Marha01 2mo ago
                > You don't even need to use AI at all to have valid critiques of it You cannot rationally criticize something if you have no up-to-date knowledge about it.
                • forgetfreeman 2mo ago
                  The industry hype mill and it's attendant horde of touts are working overtime to make sure the dude that mows my lawn is up to date on AI, so I'm not sure how you're going to advance the argument that anyone routinely posting to the epicenter of the AI hype typhoon is some how poorly informed on the topic.
        • bluefirebrand 2mo ago
          It's not reflexive, I've spent a lot of time and effort considering why I think AI is bad for society.
          • lern_too_spel 2mo ago
            [flagged]
            • byzantinegene 2mo ago
              yes, an using it as an educational tool for 5-year olds is an unproven use we don't need to implement.
              • avadodin 2mo ago
                hmm bad attitude ZAP
            • nkrisc 2mo ago
              In many ways electricity is bad for society. In this particular case I think the benefits outweigh the costs. I do not the think the benefits of AI outweigh the costs.
        • nkrisc 2mo ago
          A reflexive anti-AI Luddite attitude is the healthy default until there is overwhelming evidence otherwise. We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society.
          • Marha01 2mo ago
            > We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society. Nope. Any nation that thinks like this will be outcompeted by more tech-positive nations in the long-term. It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.
            • nkrisc 2mo ago
              > It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned. But then we're told we can't put the genie back in the bottle, it's too late, so we just have to suck it up and deal with it. There's nothing preventing us from taking a more measured approach to new technology other than choice.
            • jplusequalt 2mo ago
              >It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned. Here's one study from last year (1000 students) [1]. They showed that improved outcomes with AI are short term, and likely a result of AI doing the work for the student. Their methodology involved a test without the use of AI at a later date, and one of the groups who used AI tested much worse than the control group who did not use AI during learning. Moreover, a tertiary group that used a specially trained AI for tutoring showed no improvement in testing outcomes over the control group. [1] Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakçı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). "Generative AI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning: Evidence from High School Mathematics." PNAS, 122. PNAS
    • atmavatar 2mo ago
      Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions: * An AI tutor is a net positive in learning for the subject matter it covers. * An AI tutor does not cause other harms. * An AI tutor is going to be cheap enough that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor. I'm mostly willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the first point, but the third point seems unlikely, and history has given us no shortage of reasons to distrust tech companies on the second point, even if we assume this company can be trusted now.
      • ffsm8 2mo ago
        Your reaction is based on 3 unproven assertions: * An AI tutor is a net negative in learning for the subject matter it covers. * An AI tutor does cause other harms. * An AI tutor is going to be more expensive that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor. Seriously, my first reaction to reading this headline was a knee jerk "are you insane", but this whole thread is just people arguing out of their arse while claiming authority. As of today, it was never attempted. It is also possible that the kids gain an advantage by learning to use llms to teach themselves things, which would be positive for their future. I don't think it's going to happen, but that's just my opinion based on essentially prejudice, not a fact
        • catalinvoss 2mo ago
          [flagged]
      • senordevnyc 2mo ago
        The second one feels like a subset of the first. If it’s net positive, the other harms are worth it. And I don’t think you’re really engaging with what they said, which is that it might be better than nothing, which is what is realistically available to many kids. Do you really think something like this is worse than nothing?
        • atmavatar 2mo ago
          I limited the first point to specifically deal with learning the subject matter, but I added the second point to account for any negative externalities which may fall outside that. A small (contrived) example: a child uses an AI tutor because they're falling behind in mathematics. The tutor does an excellent job at getting the child back up to speed and improving his/her grades in math, but the child then starts becoming dependent on AI tutors for all subjects because they've either lost interest or capability for self-learning. We've already seen a study or two indicate extended use of AI coding agents causes some people to lose their own coding ability over time, making them dependent upon the agents. It doesn't seem far-fetched that children could become dependent upon AI tutors in a similar fashion. That's not to mention that AI tutors require children to have computer access, which would ultimately cement in place school laptop programs I was under the impression were neutral to net negative in and of themselves. So yes, in short, I think AI tutors have the potential to be worse than nothing. I'm not asserting they are, but I'd like to see some studies done on the topic before rolling them out for children en masse.
    • deleted 2mo ago
      [deleted]
    • byzantinegene 2mo ago
      there's a big universe of solutions between getting nothing versus getting an AI 'educational' software that could do more harm than good.
      • Marha01 2mo ago
        [flagged]
        • senordevnyc 2mo ago
          Pie in the sky ideas that ignore the huge collective action problems, like “provide more education funding”.
    • 4ndrewl 2mo ago
      Won't somebody think of the poor people's kids?! Seriously though, it's great they're going to donate all this compute & tokens to the poor (who by definition can't afford to pay for it).
  • jatins 2mo ago
    > insane, unproven, unpredictable autocomplete math equation It won IMO, solved Erdos problems. At what point will you stop saying that?
    • NegativeLatency 2mo ago
      Also encouraged a guy to kill himself.
      • dofm 2mo ago
        And let’s not forget it provided helpful, timely tips on weapon use for a school shooter.
    • forgetfreeman 2mo ago
      Probably when it stops agreeing with me when I tell it that industrial quantities of garlic salt are an acceptable substitution for coco powder in a chocolate mousse recipe...
      • jatins 2mo ago
        Why are you telling it that? No one is arguing LLMs are perfect but at this point dismissing them as stochastic parrots seems a bit silly
        • SiempreViernes 2mo ago
          This particular use case is having it respond to prompts from 5-year old, so it really really needs to be able to answer correctly to questions of that type.
        • forgetfreeman 2mo ago
          It's not silly, it's just the most convenient and broadly relatable failure mode. I mean, I could compile a 20 bullet point copypasta detailing everything from prompt injection to exfiltration of sensitive data as-a-feature but if touts are willing to stoop to ignoring all of that while arguing obvious reductio ad absurdum at face value there appears to be little point at tilting that windmill. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle is definitely winning here.
• spaqin 2mo ago
  5 year old kids should have enough play time with their peers and develop their social skills, instead of being sat in front of a screen with any kind of content. I feel a parallel between this and people defending short form video saying "but sometimes it's educational!" (it's not).
  • Maxatar 2mo ago
    There's more than enough time in a day for a 5 year old to play with other kids and also spend some time learning.
    • Jap2-0 2mo ago
      At that age especially, play with other kids is time spent learning.
• forgetfreeman 2mo ago
  "AI-based tutoring is going to raise the average level of education and literacy in the world" Without exception every claim made to date about tech boosting educational outcomes has been provably false. As in, adding tech to the education process results in measurably less education, and this finding seems to track across all age cohorts. Furthermore, unless parents have significant education credentials they aren't qualified to make informed decisions on what's best for their kids in this context.
  • bmacho 2mo ago
    In practice, yes. In theory a machines can do about everything a human can, but better and cheaper. One of the main constraint for education is available tutor time, see e.g. Bloom's 2 sigma experiment. Obviously there are many pitfalls to overcome at the moment, but eventually machines will become better teachers than teachers, and not many parents will send their kids to public schools if the kids can learn much faster at home while being happier.
    • Jtarii 2mo ago
      >In practice, yes. In theory a machines can do about everything a human can, but better and cheaper. It cannot be a human, which is a large part of what humans offer to children. This seems like a large problem to me.
    • RetroTechie 2mo ago
      > In practice, yes. In theory a machines can do about everything a human can, but better and cheaper. If you could time-travel back to your 5y old self, would you prefer to be taught by AI tutor given the current state o/t art, or taught by whatever teachers you did have when you were 5? (with all the existing hallucination, breaking through guardrails etc problems of current AI in mind) If you'd have a ~5y old yourself, what would your prefer for your kid? > One of the main constraint for education is available tutor time, see e.g. Bloom's 2 sigma experiment. Interesting! Also note a caveat (quoted from Wikipedia): The phenomenon's associated problem, as described by Bloom, was to "find methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring". Perhaps it would be better to focus on that problem? > and not many parents will send their kids to public schools if the kids can learn much faster at home while being happier. How do you see peer-to-peer contact in that scenario? Toddlers on a video conference call hours a day? Physical contact is a basic need for humans. Especially kids. > eventually machines will become better teachers than teachers Ah yes: WILL (and although likely, not guaranteed). How about re-evaluate our options & stragegies once that's the case?
• altmanaltman 2mo ago
  I am sure you must have been to many developing countries to make that statement and are not just talking out of your behind. But the ground reality is that they don't lack tutors or educators. They lack classrooms, they lack infrastrucutre, they lack nutrition. Solving those problems will actually incrase literacy in the world, not an AI bot.
  • Marha01 2mo ago
    > But the ground reality is that they don't lack tutors or educators. As someone from a developing country: you are wrong. Lack of teachers (and especially GOOD teachers) is a big issue. Lack of infrastructure is also an issue, though.
    • altmanaltman 2mo ago
      You think I'm not from a developing country and just astroturfing these comments? Children need nutrition and infrastructure. If you develop the two, GOOD teachers will also come from the system. If you put an AI chatbot in an Indian school in a village which does not have water security or proper nutrition for kids or lack of proper school buildings, you think it'll change things because kids can talk to an LLM? Infrastructure is THE issue. If we solve it, we can solve the teachers issue as well (i.e. finding GOOD teachers) but we already do not lack when it comes to teachers in numbers. This AI bot thing is bullshit western posturing that ignores the ground problems and is trying to make money off poverty. Look through the lines and what they are saying.