7 ms·

Just so we're clear, phones were already banned in classrooms. "Personal" use of AI within a classroom to help someone like a personal calculator or a personal

by pj_mukh 14d ago

Just so we're clear, phones were already banned in classrooms. "Personal" use of AI within a classroom to help someone like a personal calculator or a personal "cheating aid" was already banned. This bans it from all teaching tools and materials as well.

tw04 14d ago
Good? The amount of just flat out wrong information the average LLM spits out makes it unfit for education IMO. I can’t imagine asking teachers to have to personally vet every single lesson plan to ensure an AI wasn’t hallucinating when producing the content.
- pj_mukh 14d ago
  If they were using a two year old gpt-4o type model, I'd agree. But now I'm not sure this is a problem. Now digital tools in general are known to be harmful in learning. There's good teachers and bad teachers, there's good AI implementations and bad ones. This bans all of them. I'm not particularly worried, meaningful experimentation will continue in private schools. I just hope public schools can learn from that and open it back up when it's mature.
- lukeschlather 14d ago
  Frontier LLMs with Internet search are different beasts than what you're describing as an average LLM. In 5 years I don't think you're going to be able to get away from LLMs if you care about correctness, and we're already to the point where if a calculation matters I want an LLM to check my math.
  - JumpCrisscross 14d ago
    > In 5 years I don't think you're going to be able to get away from LLMs if you care about correctness Okay. Let’s revisit this in five years. In the meantime, let’s not experiment on our kids.
    - lukeschlather 14d ago
      I'm not talking about future capabilities, I'm saying it will cease to be arguable within 5 years. We can't just bury our heads in the sand. Kids are going to need to engage with this directly, and it cannot wait until after they graduate high school. I'm not saying give up doing things by hand, but also everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math. It's not one or the other, it has to be both.
      - JumpCrisscross 14d ago
        > We can't just bury our heads in the sand. Kids are going to need to engage with this This was the same argument made for smartphones in schools. > it cannot wait until after they graduate high school I have a strong opinion about technology in early education. The evidence is more mixed for high-school students—I don’t have a view there. If the argument is no AI in elementary or middle school, and controller introduction in high school, I could get on board with that as long as the solution is being developed by the state and not one of the AI companies or tech giants. > everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math Most people don’t need to know advanced math. Our problem, currently, is college students being unable to do basic math. Or hold attention through a book. > it has to be both Why? AI isn’t a mature technology. I’m not convinced someone who was chatting with ChatGPT in 2023 is more productive with AI, today, than someone who started building agentic workflows into their processes six months ago.
        pj_mukh 14d ago
        >>solution is being developed by the state I'm curious, how do you envision this development happening? You're (presumably) calling for all school boards to ban any AI developed anything in classrooms like NY just did. Are you expecting public universities to perhaps carry out studies first? For reference, I think putting a tablet with an AI in front of kids to talk to is a silly boogeyman most people seem to be talking about in this thread. My vision was always teacher tooling that would greatly expand the teachers ability to develop individualized curriculum and test a kids progress in a classroom etc. But calling for such blanket bans means we can't even test any of this..anywhere.
- ndsipa_pomu 14d ago
  I agree, but there's also teachers who give out wrong information too. Often it's when the teacher doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic and are just repeating what they've heard (or misheard) and they will typically compound the issue by not allowing curious questioning. There's also the issue that modern teachers are more like exam coaches rather than trying to actually teach kids.
  - pvaldes 13d ago
    Teachers earned their titles, they had to prove repeatedly that they are fit for a job that includes proving that you can learn things, that you have a logical thinking, that you are a decent enough person and that you have developped the social skills to lead a bunch of volcanic young people, taking the best paths to their grow and benefit. AI is just the weird guy that sneaked its way in, without any reference. That is know to lie often in a very convincing way, specially when it does not have an answer, and that can be persuaded to include a lot of weird random ideas or fake facts in their classes.

by pj_mukh 14d ago

tw04 14d ago

Good? The amount of just flat out wrong information the average LLM spits out makes it unfit for education IMO. I can’t imagine asking teachers to have to personally vet every single lesson plan to ensure an AI wasn’t hallucinating when producing the content.

pj_mukh 14d ago
If they were using a two year old gpt-4o type model, I'd agree. But now I'm not sure this is a problem. Now digital tools in general are known to be harmful in learning. There's good teachers and bad teachers, there's good AI implementations and bad ones. This bans all of them. I'm not particularly worried, meaningful experimentation will continue in private schools. I just hope public schools can learn from that and open it back up when it's mature.
lukeschlather 14d ago
Frontier LLMs with Internet search are different beasts than what you're describing as an average LLM. In 5 years I don't think you're going to be able to get away from LLMs if you care about correctness, and we're already to the point where if a calculation matters I want an LLM to check my math.
- JumpCrisscross 14d ago
  > In 5 years I don't think you're going to be able to get away from LLMs if you care about correctness Okay. Let’s revisit this in five years. In the meantime, let’s not experiment on our kids.
  - lukeschlather 14d ago
    I'm not talking about future capabilities, I'm saying it will cease to be arguable within 5 years. We can't just bury our heads in the sand. Kids are going to need to engage with this directly, and it cannot wait until after they graduate high school. I'm not saying give up doing things by hand, but also everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math. It's not one or the other, it has to be both.
    - JumpCrisscross 14d ago
      > We can't just bury our heads in the sand. Kids are going to need to engage with this This was the same argument made for smartphones in schools. > it cannot wait until after they graduate high school I have a strong opinion about technology in early education. The evidence is more mixed for high-school students—I don’t have a view there. If the argument is no AI in elementary or middle school, and controller introduction in high school, I could get on board with that as long as the solution is being developed by the state and not one of the AI companies or tech giants. > everyone needs to learn to work with AI to do advanced math Most people don’t need to know advanced math. Our problem, currently, is college students being unable to do basic math. Or hold attention through a book. > it has to be both Why? AI isn’t a mature technology. I’m not convinced someone who was chatting with ChatGPT in 2023 is more productive with AI, today, than someone who started building agentic workflows into their processes six months ago.
      - pj_mukh 14d ago
        >>solution is being developed by the state I'm curious, how do you envision this development happening? You're (presumably) calling for all school boards to ban any AI developed anything in classrooms like NY just did. Are you expecting public universities to perhaps carry out studies first? For reference, I think putting a tablet with an AI in front of kids to talk to is a silly boogeyman most people seem to be talking about in this thread. My vision was always teacher tooling that would greatly expand the teachers ability to develop individualized curriculum and test a kids progress in a classroom etc. But calling for such blanket bans means we can't even test any of this..anywhere.
ndsipa_pomu 14d ago
I agree, but there's also teachers who give out wrong information too. Often it's when the teacher doesn't have a deep understanding of the topic and are just repeating what they've heard (or misheard) and they will typically compound the issue by not allowing curious questioning. There's also the issue that modern teachers are more like exam coaches rather than trying to actually teach kids.
- pvaldes 13d ago
  Teachers earned their titles, they had to prove repeatedly that they are fit for a job that includes proving that you can learn things, that you have a logical thinking, that you are a decent enough person and that you have developped the social skills to lead a bunch of volcanic young people, taking the best paths to their grow and benefit. AI is just the weird guy that sneaked its way in, without any reference. That is know to lie often in a very convincing way, specially when it does not have an answer, and that can be persuaded to include a lot of weird random ideas or fake facts in their classes.