Submitted by lenhoi t3_zw95vx in Futurology
Nixeris t1_j1ul6na wrote
Reply to comment by Gagarin1961 in AI and education by lenhoi
You're not writing essays to teach people the wonders of the technology of the pencil, you’re writing essays to show you can think critically and express that reasonably in your own words.
Teaching them to make prompts is teaching them the technology not mentally developing their reasoning and comprehension.
Gagarin1961 t1_j1umzdb wrote
> you’re writing essays to show you can think critically and express that reasonably in your own words.
With less time actually writing, you can spend so much more time on critical thinking.
“In your own words” is practically pointless if your words are wrong or lacking detail.
We should be teaching kids to understand what the output is saying and if it actually supports their argument. Then we should move on to debating different ideas so they are exposed to an even greater number of thoughts and viewpoints.
You can see Reddit fail at this on a daily basis, they will quote things that don’t support their argument at all, because they’ve only been taught “This is how you cite a source, and if you have that then you’re correct.”
> Teaching them to make prompts
That’s not at all what I’m saying. I’m talking about teaching them to read at a higher level at a lower age so they can actually comprehend the output.
Then move on to exposing them to different ideas and points of view.
Why do teachers only have students write one side of a persuasive essay instead of both 99% of the time? Because of the time and effort required to produce just one. But now even deeper levels of critical thinking are possible.
Nixeris t1_j1uof45 wrote
>Why do teachers only have students write one side of a persuasive essay instead of both 99% of the time? Because of the time and effort required to produce just one. But now even deeper levels of critical thinking are possible.
They only wrote one side because the point isn't to debate the subject. The subject completely doesn't matter. The purpose is for the person to formulate and put down their ideas. The paper at the end is just to show the teacher that they understand. The paper is not the purpose of the process, it's just a measurement.
Teachers don't spend time having kids write both sides because the sides are immaterial to the purpose. It's why they have you write many papers on many subjects instead. Because the purpose isn't to actually determine which sandwich is best for all time, it's to determine if the student can come up with a reasonable argument and express it in their own words.
>“In your own words” is practically pointless if your words are wrong or lacking detail.
That's why you do it. It's practice. At no point is the purpose of a class to determine the correct answer through writing essays.
Gagarin1961 t1_j1vssq0 wrote
> The purpose is for the person to formulate and put down their ideas.
There can be multiple purposes. After a certain amount of time, kids are perfectly fine with doing that. Limiting them to just writing down their thoughts for 16 years straight is useless when we can incorporate so much more now.
> The paper at the end is just to show the teacher that they understand. The paper is not the purpose of the process, it’s just a measurement.
Good teachers will incorporate multiple goals into a single project.
In life, everything will be measured multiple different ways.
> Teachers don’t spend time having kids write both sides because the sides are immaterial to the purpose.
And that’s partially why I think education needs a dramatic reform. There’s literally no reason they can’t also include the Socratic Method to a greater degree in every relevant lesson.
> It’s why they have you write many papers on many subjects instead. Because the purpose isn’t to actually determine which sandwich is best for all time,
But that’s not the point of debate either!
The point is to show that despite research and thoughtful arguments, they can still not think of entire points of view and counter-arguments. It’s to expose them to other worldviews and ideas, and most importantly, it teaches that their “own words” are not the end of the conversation.
> it’s to determine if the student can come up with a reasonable argument and express it in their own words.
And debate increases that skill 10 fold because those ideas now have to actually stand up against challenge.
Do you know how often I’ve bullshitted a stupid argument for an essay and got an A because it simply contained an argument? We’re talking huge leaps in logic. That’s not where education should end.
> That’s why you do it. It’s practice. At no point is the purpose of a class to determine the correct answer through writing essays.
Then you’re teaching kids how to bullshit and aren’t instilling actually important lessons… just because we don’t like AI?
Nixeris t1_j1vuh0u wrote
>Then you’re teaching kids how to bullshit and aren’t instilling actually important lessons… just because we don’t like AI?
I love AI, but that doesn't mean you need to apply it to everything or that it's suitable for everything.
When you start learning how to do things, it's better to learn the hard way first, then learn the easier methods. Because the knowledge you get from learning the fundamentals gives you a better grasp of what the easier method is trying to accomplish.
What you're describing is a debate class. Those already exist, and will absolutely teach you how to bullshit way more than any other course.
Gagarin1961 t1_j1vvhm2 wrote
> but that doesn’t mean you need to apply it to everything or that it’s suitable for everything.
Suitable? Those that know how to use it will be able to create better arguments at a faster rate. It’s hugely relevant to all aspects of life.
We need to take advantage as fast as possible or others will for nefarious purposes first.
> When you start learning how to do things, it’s better to learn the hard way first, then learn the easier methods.
That’s fine but by middle school we need to be teaching them critical thinking and the Socratic method. AI can help with that and teach them how to use it.
> What you’re describing is a debate class. Those already exist, and will absolutely teach you how to bullshit way more than any other course.
I’m describing the Socratic Method. Everywhere it’s incorporated leads to better understanding of subject matter and of counter arguments.
Most schools don’t even have debate class. Some high schools have a debate club.
There’s literally no downside to incorporating it. If AI can allow us to do it more often then we should embrace it.
Nixeris t1_j1w09tj wrote
>Most schools don’t even have debate class. Some high schools have a debate club.
The reason they don't have it has nothing to do with time, or a lack of AI.
They don't use the Socratic Method because each class has 20 or more students to 1 teacher. It has nothing to do with the amount of time they spend writing papers. You're trying to find a reason why AI would be great for education and coming up with some really odd conclusions.
bisexualspikespiegel t1_j1x14et wrote
it's not true that teachers ask only to argue one side. you're supposed to also write about opposing views in order to refute them and make your own argumenr stronger.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments