I'm sure LLMs can augment learning in some settings, esp in higher ed, but putting more computer time for kids learning basics (I mean K-8 mostly) I hope is handled more carefully than things like Quizlet...
I'm sure LLMs can augment learning in some settings, esp in higher ed, but putting more computer time for kids learning basics (I mean K-8 mostly) I hope is handled more carefully than things like Quizlet...
"Education requires three things: a teacher, a student, and a stump. Unwilling to change the first, unable to change the second, educators spend all their money on the third."
LLMs are great explainers of known theory. They can adapt to the level of the user and illustrate with concrete examples. They have infinite patience, there is no pressure.
When they don't lie. When they don't make up citations that don't exist.
I think GPT-4 is moderately useful for software development, and I use it daily, but I have to check even very minor things, and having ~25 years of programming experience means I can do that intuitively. A kid doesn't have that.
I think this will be close to 0 of a problem when explaining to a HS biology student something like, what a mitochondria does or what mitosis is. It only fails (increasingly rarely) when you push the boundaries of human knowledge.
LLMs are useful tools. They are dramatically less useful if you can't detect bullshit. By definition, a student is poorly equipped to do so, and moreso if allowed to atrophy in the area of research capacity because they can just ask an LLM. (A pocket calculator is a good analogy--life carries much less friction when you can efficiently do arithmetic and basic algebra in your head, because the affordances of dragging out a calculator to know how to minimize the change you get back are bad.)
People who are talking about automation of education are grown up people who think that all people think structurally and just lack the specific knowledge. Kids actually don't do it.