Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Glad_Laugh_5656 t1_jdi0rdq wrote


FaceDeer t1_jdifph6 wrote

It's harder for an individual teacher to screw up someone's life through incompetence, but collectively they're rather important for setting up the foundations of who children are and what they become.

It's a tricky thing to argue for changes, though, since it takes a long time to determine the outcome of any experiments. With doctors and prosecutors the outcomes are much quicker and often much clearer.


SoylentRox t1_jdilyc7 wrote

A personalized AI tutor and a curriculum with objective measurements, where once a student scores high enough they finish, would probably make teachers fairly unnecessary other than as a "hall monitor" to oversee groups of kids on their devices being taught by AI.


FaceDeer t1_jdinshj wrote

That's the easy part, though. Coming up with that curriculum and determining what objective measurements count as "finished" is the hard part. You still need to tell the AI what it is that you want it to teach the children.


SoylentRox t1_jdipsfx wrote

I mean you could simply grab a heap of exams the school district already gave and the standardized tests and just use that. Not saying this is an optimal standard but it's what we already use.


Rofel_Wodring t1_jdj1ii8 wrote

I am positive that an AI will do a better job of coming up with a useful curriculum than a non-augmented human could. Why? Because curriculums inherently have a lot of waste to them. It is impossible to design, let alone teach in accordance with, a curriculum that is suitable for a child that's slightly behind or some already knows the topic when you have to teach 20 of them. The result? Students increasingly falling behind with smarter or more experienced children

Like, there's a reason why language textbooks tend to be corny AF, like I'm taking a Differential Equations course designed by Sesame Street. Because both children and adults are the intended audience, and textbooks can't adjust their internal language to accommodate both.


Rofel_Wodring t1_jdj11wl wrote

>It's a tricky thing to argue for changes, though, since it takes a long time to determine the outcome of any experiments.

Not if the improvement is immediate and profound, and it will be. The AI doesn't even need to be super-advanced, though it will inevitably be. Just being able to personalize instruction for individual students would vastly improve the quality. And once we have 10-year old kids from poorer schools beating private-school non-AI-taught teenagers in math contests, I expect for AI to completely infiltrate education. If it hasn't already.