How is this different from a calculator, Di? Pocket calculators did not cause math ability to whither. It instead allowed students to focus on the less tedious things of the job.
Perhaps AI will eventually be good enough to displace most of what we do. But given our poor education outcomes, I don't think it could do much worse than what w…
How is this different from a calculator, Di? Pocket calculators did not cause math ability to whither. It instead allowed students to focus on the less tedious things of the job.
Perhaps AI will eventually be good enough to displace most of what we do. But given our poor education outcomes, I don't think it could do much worse than what we have. And the upside – personalised AI assistants, for example – seem to hold much potential for actually helping to upskill the weakest students, closing the education gap.
Johan, as regards maths, I can’t comment on present standards, except with anecdotal evidence. I’ve found my grandson hesitant or dumbstruck in performing simple mental arithmetic that didn’t faze me at his age. (And yet I was considered not very gifted at maths, whereas his school tells him he’s excellent.) What appears to me his lack of achievement appropriate to his age seems to be partly because the school hasn’t thought it worthwhile making him learn his times tables, and partly because of the bizarre new methods of teaching maths. Apparently the method used to teach me, then called the new maths, was inspired by the desire of the US to beat Russia in the space race. Certainly it didn’t involve allowing children to rely on calculators before learning the basics.
As for ‘the tedious things of the job’, I’m all for machines taking over drudgery. The washing machine was a great advance for women. I’m glad not to have to rub and scrub in a tub. But AI is taking over processes that may be tedious for some, but essential for fully mastering an academic skill. Learning French irregular verbs, for example, is tedious, but having to learn them, and other mechanisms of the language, made me able to write and speak the language with confidence. I’m glad I was not allowed to use an AI translator to save me this effort. If that had been allowed, I’d still be hobbling along, leaning on that crutch. The tedious effort taught me something. It gave me a skill. Scrubbing clothes would have taught me nothing and given me nothing, so there I’m grateful to the machine. But having to rely on a ‘personalised AI assistant’ when I want to write or speak French would be humiliating. Have we lost pride in human skill? Are we going to deny students the pleasure of looking back at the tedious effort that was required of them and enjoying what it enabled them to do by themselves?
As for ‘closing the education gap’, I suspect AI will do no such thing. Rather, it will give the academically ungifted and lazy the illusion that they can do as well as the gifted and hardworking. And how is the teacher to distinguish merit if all the students are relying on the machine?
How is this different from a calculator, Di? Pocket calculators did not cause math ability to whither. It instead allowed students to focus on the less tedious things of the job.
Perhaps AI will eventually be good enough to displace most of what we do. But given our poor education outcomes, I don't think it could do much worse than what we have. And the upside – personalised AI assistants, for example – seem to hold much potential for actually helping to upskill the weakest students, closing the education gap.
Johan, as regards maths, I can’t comment on present standards, except with anecdotal evidence. I’ve found my grandson hesitant or dumbstruck in performing simple mental arithmetic that didn’t faze me at his age. (And yet I was considered not very gifted at maths, whereas his school tells him he’s excellent.) What appears to me his lack of achievement appropriate to his age seems to be partly because the school hasn’t thought it worthwhile making him learn his times tables, and partly because of the bizarre new methods of teaching maths. Apparently the method used to teach me, then called the new maths, was inspired by the desire of the US to beat Russia in the space race. Certainly it didn’t involve allowing children to rely on calculators before learning the basics.
As for ‘the tedious things of the job’, I’m all for machines taking over drudgery. The washing machine was a great advance for women. I’m glad not to have to rub and scrub in a tub. But AI is taking over processes that may be tedious for some, but essential for fully mastering an academic skill. Learning French irregular verbs, for example, is tedious, but having to learn them, and other mechanisms of the language, made me able to write and speak the language with confidence. I’m glad I was not allowed to use an AI translator to save me this effort. If that had been allowed, I’d still be hobbling along, leaning on that crutch. The tedious effort taught me something. It gave me a skill. Scrubbing clothes would have taught me nothing and given me nothing, so there I’m grateful to the machine. But having to rely on a ‘personalised AI assistant’ when I want to write or speak French would be humiliating. Have we lost pride in human skill? Are we going to deny students the pleasure of looking back at the tedious effort that was required of them and enjoying what it enabled them to do by themselves?
As for ‘closing the education gap’, I suspect AI will do no such thing. Rather, it will give the academically ungifted and lazy the illusion that they can do as well as the gifted and hardworking. And how is the teacher to distinguish merit if all the students are relying on the machine?