nucrow

Not sure that's true. https://assets.weforum.org/editor/cXaoElD7K4eR-JTqP-ViH1LkcC... https://climateataglance.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/lomb... (disclaimer: quickly looked these up from memory, haven't verified their accuracy)

> Unfortunately, we couldn't measure such correlations due to many external factors that can impact students' performance on test scores.

Fair. Guess we'll have to roll it out to increase that sample size :)

> We found that students who performed higher on our Scratch programming pre-tests (before starting the Python lessons), performed significantly better if they had access to the code generator.

Interesting!

From the paper > Additionally, students in the Codex group were more eager and excited to continue learning about programming, and felt much less stressed and discouraged during the training

This by itself could reap great benefits years down the line. Me and my wife have felt the same way at work!

I think I may have been unclear.

>... I would still see that this kind of linguistic framing is insensitive and self-defeating if not wholly inappropriate and demeaning if you want to see any co-operation from educators

I think this was spot on, and I agree with you. I meant to ask: have you thought about a way to frame it, in which educators don't feel threatened but instead excited ? Given that, from my perspective, there's a great chance to enhance both the teaching and learning experience, as well as results

> It elides the possibility that it is inherently better to learn from a real person, who has invested time and effort into teaching you.

I did elude it, for the sake of the argument. If it turns out that in fact human tutoring is fundamentally better, then there's of course no point in using an inferior system (sweeping accesibility and other concerns under the rug). Go humans, if we're better!

> What is the point of higher education in particular if you are not learning, at some point, from people who are directly adjacent to cutting edge thinking?

For the subset that do research, this matters a lot. But for most everyone else looking for a better job, it's not really relevant.

> Well then. I can't argue with this, if you think it's OK to take humanity out of teaching. I think — perhaps feel — you are so wrong that I can barely even string the words together to explain. And that is an unbridgeable divide

I appreciate your candidness, and perhaps it's true that we may just not be able to agree. For what it's worth, my bet is tutors' quality will improve, rather than them getting displaced. My point however is: I want my kid to learn as best as possible. If that turns out to be with a robot, I'm not making my kid worse off to save some guy's job.

First off, congrats! Cool paper! Q: did you measure the correlation between CodeAid use and test scores? When educational youtube videos took off, people liked them a lot, but turns out people weren't really retaining very much information. You'd think this wouldn't be the case for CodeAid, but it's important to check

Imagine we could, with the snap of a finger, come up with an AI tutor that is objectively better than human TAs. Better as in: between 2 groups of 10,000 students, those with AI tutors do better on perfomance metrics 95% of the time than those students with human tutors. Would you be opposed to replacing human tutors then?

If your answer is yes, (in some flavor of "protecting and helping the jobs of those who teach), I would argue your ethics are focused on the wrong group. Teaching is for students to learn, not for teachers to have jobs.

We don't have said technology yet, but it's reasonable to think we can get close. If there's a good chance to improve how well students can learn, I don't think "teachers don't appreciate it" is a good reason not to do it.

I'm curious as to how you would frame it instead.

Which is great, but the point is that we should "fret" about making sure that's the case.

The goal of building washing machines, highways, etc. is not a cleaner environment. The point of windfarms is, but it defeats the purpose if producing them emits more carbon than they save.