4 ms·

"a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one" ... for now, and even then I'm not so sure. Edit: And what about a competent teacher that re

"a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one" ... for now, and even then I'm not so sure. Edit: And what about a competent teacher that records one lesson and broadcasts it to millions?

meric 10y ago
By better, he means better excluding quantity. For a particular individual, a competent meat teacher is more valuable than a competent silicon one.
vacri 10y ago
Teaching is a two-way communication - a good teacher can pick up on how well the student is doing, and raise or lower the pitch of the lesson to match, or observe simple (or complex) misconceptions early[1]. A digital broadcast can't do that. In theory, we can get AI that can dynamically adapt to their students, but we're a very long way from that. [1]A simple example - I self-taught myself guitar using online resources. I wasn't great, but I seemed to be doing what all the various resources were saying to do. Eventually I got tired of always being terrible, and shelled out for a teacher. In the first couple of weeks, he had fixed half-a-dozen tiny issues with my technique, which added up to make a terrible cacophony. I'd never be able to do that with the online resources. Another example, from when I was a practical class demonstrator for a biology-based class in the '90s. There was a hue and cry about how all lessons of the future would be digital and no more lab animals would have to die (toads, for us). I countered with "how are you going to have a video show you how it feels to tie a ligature too loose or too tight?". Likewise, David Attenborough's documentaries are sterling, but they're not as good as going to the place and experiencing it in person. Physical skills like the above are clear examples, but even for a standard lecture, human beats video-of-human - how many of us have been in a lecture when someone asks a 'stupid question' that clears up a misconception for everyone? Good digital lessons are great for scale, but a good meat-based teacher is better. Of course, bad versions of either can be downright destructive...

meric 10y ago

By better, he means better excluding quantity. For a particular individual, a competent meat teacher is more valuable than a competent silicon one.

vacri 10y ago

Teaching is a two-way communication - a good teacher can pick up on how well the student is doing, and raise or lower the pitch of the lesson to match, or observe simple (or complex) misconceptions early[1]. A digital broadcast can't do that. In theory, we can get AI that can dynamically adapt to their students, but we're a very long way from that. [1]A simple example - I self-taught myself guitar using online resources. I wasn't great, but I seemed to be doing what all the various resources were saying to do. Eventually I got tired of always being terrible, and shelled out for a teacher. In the first couple of weeks, he had fixed half-a-dozen tiny issues with my technique, which added up to make a terrible cacophony. I'd never be able to do that with the online resources. Another example, from when I was a practical class demonstrator for a biology-based class in the '90s. There was a hue and cry about how all lessons of the future would be digital and no more lab animals would have to die (toads, for us). I countered with "how are you going to have a video show you how it feels to tie a ligature too loose or too tight?". Likewise, David Attenborough's documentaries are sterling, but they're not as good as going to the place and experiencing it in person. Physical skills like the above are clear examples, but even for a standard lecture, human beats video-of-human - how many of us have been in a lecture when someone asks a 'stupid question' that clears up a misconception for everyone? Good digital lessons are great for scale, but a good meat-based teacher is better. Of course, bad versions of either can be downright destructive...