3 ms·

Alternatively this is an analogue to a parent in 1985 taking their computer away from their kid. AI tools exist, we should be encouraging our kids to learn how

by RC_ITR 3y ago

Alternatively this is an analogue to a parent in 1985 taking their computer away from their kid. AI tools exist, we should be encouraging our kids to learn how to exist in a world with them, not some nostalgic extinct world without.

bigfishrunning 3y ago
Computers in 1985 were a tool that took real skill to use. In order to solve any problem with a computer, you had to use your brain. Most of the things a kid does on a computer in 2023 are actively geared toward not using your brain in any way. This is more analogous to a parent in 1985 taking away both the phone and the TV from their kid.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  >Computers in 1985 were a tool that took real skill to use. Eye of the beholder, I guess. I certainly see people struggle to use LLM's so I disagree with the implication that it's a zero-skill activity.
tomcam 3y ago
I choose to believe that at a minimum, she didn’t read the book, and no AI summary will get you the same experience. Also, lying is bad.
- RC_ITR 3y ago
  >no AI summary will get you the same experience Yes, but other than being conditioned to believe the experience of reading is superior, why are we striving for that experience? Doing the square root of 147 by hand is a more educational experience than using a calculator, but I can understand the concept of a square root without having to factorize 147 (the same cannot be said of my pre-calculator ancestors). It also saves me from having to remember the decimal representation of sqrt3.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Reading helps build vocabulary and probably helps improve her use of the language as a whole. It’s like running to lose weight but you decide to cheat by taking a cab instead. With math, when you are first learning the very basics it helps to do a few problems by hand to get a feel of things. Sure if you have a degree in STEM have have deal with advance math you can probably get away with just reading the theory only.
    - RC_ITR 3y ago
      My argument is that reading is actually a very bad way to learn/communicate and always has been. We just built a very strong culture encouraging it because for a long time it was the most efficient way to do both things. Now it’s not, but the tradition of it being important is hard to shake. The closest analogue in my mind is how the classics in their original Greek were considered the only true way to learn for a very long time (even once most of the important knowledge had been translated to English very well).
      - worrycue 3y ago
        Reading is a perfectly fine way to increase one’s vocabulary. It’s not the only way - TV and actually conversation would work too. I don’t see why it’s a bad way. It’s cheap and doesn’t require manpower per session.
      - bigfishrunning 3y ago
        For some people, it still is the most efficient way to learn/communicate. Nothing is more annoying then using google to try to solve some problem and the first few results are videos...

by RC_ITR 3y ago

bigfishrunning 3y ago

Computers in 1985 were a tool that took real skill to use. In order to solve any problem with a computer, you had to use your brain. Most of the things a kid does on a computer in 2023 are actively geared toward not using your brain in any way. This is more analogous to a parent in 1985 taking away both the phone and the TV from their kid.

RC_ITR 3y ago
>Computers in 1985 were a tool that took real skill to use. Eye of the beholder, I guess. I certainly see people struggle to use LLM's so I disagree with the implication that it's a zero-skill activity.

tomcam 3y ago

I choose to believe that at a minimum, she didn’t read the book, and no AI summary will get you the same experience. Also, lying is bad.

RC_ITR 3y ago
>no AI summary will get you the same experience Yes, but other than being conditioned to believe the experience of reading is superior, why are we striving for that experience? Doing the square root of 147 by hand is a more educational experience than using a calculator, but I can understand the concept of a square root without having to factorize 147 (the same cannot be said of my pre-calculator ancestors). It also saves me from having to remember the decimal representation of sqrt3.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Reading helps build vocabulary and probably helps improve her use of the language as a whole. It’s like running to lose weight but you decide to cheat by taking a cab instead. With math, when you are first learning the very basics it helps to do a few problems by hand to get a feel of things. Sure if you have a degree in STEM have have deal with advance math you can probably get away with just reading the theory only.
  - RC_ITR 3y ago
    My argument is that reading is actually a very bad way to learn/communicate and always has been. We just built a very strong culture encouraging it because for a long time it was the most efficient way to do both things. Now it’s not, but the tradition of it being important is hard to shake. The closest analogue in my mind is how the classics in their original Greek were considered the only true way to learn for a very long time (even once most of the important knowledge had been translated to English very well).
    - worrycue 3y ago
      Reading is a perfectly fine way to increase one’s vocabulary. It’s not the only way - TV and actually conversation would work too. I don’t see why it’s a bad way. It’s cheap and doesn’t require manpower per session.
    - bigfishrunning 3y ago
      For some people, it still is the most efficient way to learn/communicate. Nothing is more annoying then using google to try to solve some problem and the first few results are videos...