> So far the "totally customized for each kid" online learning experiences that have been pushed by tech people haven't yet panned out at all
absolutely fair criticism. I think this is how it will work out for students (my specific comment is written for devs but the underlying concept applies): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50361121
To repeat what I said here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50370496
What would be fantastic if we, as a society, invested in (S)LLM tools that every student "owns" and can "tune" to their liking. Almost like an assistant that "grows" with them.
The idea is that these tools are theirs, in their control and for them to manage.
Unlike Fable, it doesn't arbitrarily stop a student interested in reversing software or hardware from learning the craft because they are not a licensed researcher.
> But there's a difference between AI helping the teacher deliver a tailored learning experience to an individual, and a student just getting answers from AI. They're totally different. It's the second one that we want to simply block
What about an entirely different approach to that?
Existing study plans weren't designed with generative AI in mind at all. Educational policies and study plans even go back as much as 2000 years - we still follow practices and principles that were used when there were no electricity, forget PCs and generative AI.
Young children used to flock around a knowledgeable elder who would impart knowledge under a tree or a covered shed.
Maybe we need to rethink those policies, study plans, practices and principles by asking ourselves "what would the next generation of education look like if all exams were open book"?