5 ms·

The irony is that the world where AI could reasonably explain and teach any level of math is the same world where most of such graduates would be unemployed any

The irony is that the world where AI could reasonably explain and teach any level of math is the same world where most of such graduates would be unemployed anyways. You’re already seeing oversupply of educated folks in India and China. Graduate students working as baristas in USA, etc. Sadly inevitable. In any case it’s good to have the resources I suppose. I’m also fundamentally skeptical of these stats around math struggling. What percentage of kids who would be very likely to use Khan Academy are struggling with math? And what percentage who are not would even use khan academy to begin with? Most of the problems with students doing poorly are sadly societal - not to say that this isn’t useful, though.

trod123 2y ago
AI won't ever be able to teach math because AI cannot reason. It handles information very differently than humans do. It is at best a flawed oracle that may lie through omission without you being able to tell. This is supported by the fact that there are hard limits to computation, in terms of both Computability Theory, and Complexity Theory that are often disregarded by the novice and magical thinker alike despite being largely solved fields by experts in Computer Science, at least in terms of Computability Theory. Most of this work was completed in the 1950s. This is not a difficult a subject, but most people online simply are unwilling to do the work to rationally learn this and instead choose to try and hide their own ignorance because they feel inadequate, or perhaps they are engaging in something more malevolent. The reasoning (false justification) doesn't really matter. It is, however; quite telling when expert's have validated these things, and yet any mention contrary to a narrative provokes downvotes in a public forum to remove it from view. A perfect example of intentional actions done by third-parties trying to misinform others about the risks (by those parties actions removing legitimate and valid information). For those with the cajones to actually learn this stuff. Here is a link. It seems very jaron laden but it provides a true understanding of how computers actually work which is sorely lacking in the youth of today. MIT 18.404J Theory of Computation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9syvZr-9xwk&list=PLUl4u3cNGP60_JNv2MmK3wkOt9syvfQWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9syvZr-9xwk&list=PLUl4u3cNGP... The only net benefit AI has towards society is towards destructive ends because there are far more destructive people whose efforts scale more in general when compared to the good people today. These people often do things which cannot be undone (salting the earth and burning the bridge). Simply not having a sufficient background, or failing to perform basic due dilligence often will place most people in that destructive cohort regardless of their own personal beliefs. Outcomes matter more than intentions, and the devil is always in the details. A perfect example of this potential landmine of a field would be anything dealing with the underlying mechanisms involved in human to human communication. There is an uncanny valley, and distorted reflected appraisal will occur inevitably in any human to AI interface seeking to mimic human communication. Case studies from torture during the Korean Conflict (1950s) show that distorting reflected appraisal leads to either psychotic or dissociative behavior that progresses as exposure increases, it can permanently break people to the point where they cannot recover. Often, the first thing to go is rational thought. Multiple experts cover this and confirm the findings (Lifton, Meerloo). So what do you suppose will happen when AI distorts reflected appraisal (because it can't be tested sufficiently to the contrary) and its then used on the next generation of children? (who are inherently vulnerable to permanent change at that stage of development). If as a result, they end up either killing themselves or others, or become people incapable of rational thought (which impulse control is correlated with), do you think they'll be alive or survive very long? What indicators would there be that this is happening (none, other than increasing chaotic violence) Who do you think will be responsible for crippling them if that were to come to pass? Would any kind of justification ever be able to justify that outcome? Could we even recover from intentional crazy-making as a society? (likely not, insanity cannot be cured). These things are not toys. Outcomes matter.
- hollerith 2y ago
  >The moment that any element has more than one underlying meaning the problem class exceeds what is capable by a computer (also known as a deterministic finite automata). This is complete bullshit, and computability theory has nothing to say about which (if any) cognitive tasks people can do that AI cannot.
  - trod123 2y ago
    > This is complete bullshit That may be your belief, but it is not, and beliefs mean little in the face of reality. Saying the same thing in a more formalized way (so there can be no ambiguity), it is inherent in the 1:1 unique input to output relationship that is required for each state transition on a state graph, for the system's property of determinism to be preserved. No disrespect intended, but you don't seem to have actually taken or learned important parts regarding this subject matter. > computability theory has nothing to say about which (if any) cognitive tasks people can do that AI cannot. You are incorrect. The very first video in that linked coursework (from MIT) provides a counterexample to this statement. The professor clearly states this is impossible, and the proofs that come later in the class prove it. This statement is an over-generalization based in fallacy.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      >you don't seem to have actually taken or learned important parts regarding this subject matter. If I hadn't mastered the concepts of computability and deterministic finite automata, I wouldn't've written what I did.
      - trod123 2y ago
        I'd have responded sooner but YN stopped accepting submissions, sorry if they made you wait. We will have to disagree. I feel my position still stands correct on solid rational foundation, since you haven't provided any rational basis other than an appeal to authority, and there remain several unanswered contradictions in the supposition you made.
bilsbie 2y ago
You’re already unemployed if you focus on history or literature but we still learn it. It teaches you how to think and how to learn which is valuable no matter what.
- beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
  > You’re already unemployed if you focus on history or literature but we still learn it. Most people are still employed if they focus on history or literature. They just might not be making a lot of money or working in history or literature, though some do. Plenty of people in highly "employable" degrees also find themselves unemployed for a long time once they graduate. The reality is that getting a college degree, regardless of the major, increases your chances of employment afterwards and potential lifelong earnings enormously over only a HS degree. But as you implied, most of the worst trends in higher-ed, a real corruption of its original intentions and values, have come from a obsession with the idea that higher-ed is solely about employee training.
  - lupire 2y ago
    Higher Ed was invented as vocational training for clergy.
curiousllama 2y ago
Or, it's a world where people understand math in non-math jobs. What a world that would be!
dghlsakjg 2y ago
I disagree. There is no such thing as a societal oversupply of educated people. There might be a market oversupply, but a well educated society is a stupid thing to avoid. I would also argue that we are seeing an oversupply of people with education credentials, rather than an education. Even in high end universities in China cheating is rampant (this isn't isolated to China, but my experience is that Chinese students are VERY open about it). For many people in University, the goal isn't to get an education, it is to get a degree. As to my own experience: I am, according to most standardized tests, very apt at quantitative reasoning, but I never progressed far in math in school. Why? because I was placed on the standard track in math in a public school with a bunch of students who didn't care, and teachers who didn't have time to care, and to be honest, the attitude rubbed off. I once got in trouble because I programmed a python script to do my problem sets when I was 13 because it was faster than doing it by hand for me. In retrospect, that form of "cheating" was a sign that my teachers should have picked up on. Quite simply, I never had access to a good math instructor throughout my schooling. Now, decades later, I am intensely interested in a lot of subjects that require a background in math that I don't have, and I am becoming interested in Math for Math's sake. I have been using open access textbooks, and an AI assistant of my own creation to help me learn.
- endisneigh 2y ago
  > I disagree. There is no such thing as a societal oversupply of educated people. I disagree with this assessment. You don’t need everyone to have a phd. There’s education and there’s Education. With respect to the article, sure it’s great if everyone is good at math, but not everyone needs a math PhD. Additionally there are diminishing returns on the time spent learning more and more math vs. other things. In any case there have already been tons of math resources available for a while now. A better example would be chemistry. Should everyone be spending time learning chemistry, why or why not? Intellectual obesity is a thing - simply knowing more things isn’t inherently useful.
  - dghlsakjg 2y ago
    The rest of my comment mostly agrees with that. I highlighted that there is an overage of people with degrees rather than actual education. > In any case there have already been tons of math resources available for a while now. That's great if you have the ability to learn everything from a static resource, and have the time to wait for asynchronous guidance. But what if you just sort of get it, but there is no one that can explain the parts you don't get? I've been to places where the educational standards are low enough that making change from a payment was an impossible task without a calculator. A keen student in that particular village has no one they can easily ask about math when they hit a sticking point. > Intellectual obesity is a thing - simply knowing more things isn’t inherently useful. I don't disagree for extreme cases, but creating more resources for people to learn has an incredible payoff, and is almost certainly morally right. Erring on the side of overeducated rarely turns out poorly at the societal, or personal level. Across the world, more highly educated societies tend to be better off across most QOL metrics. I'm well aware that there are anecdotal counterexamples of math PHDs living off of ramen. But there's a damn good reason that brain drain is a concern in many places, and other places favour immigration candidates with higher education.
PebblesRox 2y ago
Yes, the studies tend to exclude the kids who aren't using the tools "enough," which can end up being 95% of the students! [0] On the other hand, I know there are people who enjoy math but struggle to pay attention and learn from a "sit quietly and listen" lecture-based model. (My husband is in this camp.) I can see how the back-and-forth conversational approach of these AI tutors could be really helpful for students like this. They're still a small minority of the student population, but maybe a different minority from the students who are already excelling academically. If Khanmigo helps only 5% but it's a slightly different 5% from the students who are best served by the current system, I see that as a win, even if it's not the educational revolution that is being hyped. [0] https://danmeyer.substack.com/p/the-kids-that-edtech-writes-off https://danmeyer.substack.com/p/the-kids-that-edtech-writes-...
newswasboring 2y ago
> What percentage of kids who would be very likely to use Khan Academy are struggling with math? A lot. A lot, lot. There are entire states full of people in India who don't have access to good teaching. Who travel absurd distances and stay away from their family for years to get access to good education. In the last few years as kids in my extended family grew up, I am amazed by how much they just learn from YouTube. One of the biggest educational startups started from a free education YT channel.
- endisneigh 2y ago
  Interesting - from my time in India most kids don’t even have reliable access to internet and electricity and are very unlikely to be using khan academy to begin with
  - lupire 2y ago
    India has more Internet users than most continents have total population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_India
    - endisneigh 2y ago
      So? Doesn’t contradict what I said and even supports it if you read it…
  - newswasboring 2y ago
    When was your time in India?
    - endisneigh 2y ago
      Nine months ago (BLR)

trod123 2y ago

AI won't ever be able to teach math because AI cannot reason. It handles information very differently than humans do. It is at best a flawed oracle that may lie through omission without you being able to tell. This is supported by the fact that there are hard limits to computation, in terms of both Computability Theory, and Complexity Theory that are often disregarded by the novice and magical thinker alike despite being largely solved fields by experts in Computer Science, at least in terms of Computability Theory. Most of this work was completed in the 1950s. This is not a difficult a subject, but most people online simply are unwilling to do the work to rationally learn this and instead choose to try and hide their own ignorance because they feel inadequate, or perhaps they are engaging in something more malevolent. The reasoning (false justification) doesn't really matter. It is, however; quite telling when expert's have validated these things, and yet any mention contrary to a narrative provokes downvotes in a public forum to remove it from view. A perfect example of intentional actions done by third-parties trying to misinform others about the risks (by those parties actions removing legitimate and valid information). For those with the cajones to actually learn this stuff. Here is a link. It seems very jaron laden but it provides a true understanding of how computers actually work which is sorely lacking in the youth of today. MIT 18.404J Theory of Computation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9syvZr-9xwk&list=PLUl4u3cNGP60_JNv2MmK3wkOt9syvfQWY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9syvZr-9xwk&list=PLUl4u3cNGP... The only net benefit AI has towards society is towards destructive ends because there are far more destructive people whose efforts scale more in general when compared to the good people today. These people often do things which cannot be undone (salting the earth and burning the bridge). Simply not having a sufficient background, or failing to perform basic due dilligence often will place most people in that destructive cohort regardless of their own personal beliefs. Outcomes matter more than intentions, and the devil is always in the details. A perfect example of this potential landmine of a field would be anything dealing with the underlying mechanisms involved in human to human communication. There is an uncanny valley, and distorted reflected appraisal will occur inevitably in any human to AI interface seeking to mimic human communication. Case studies from torture during the Korean Conflict (1950s) show that distorting reflected appraisal leads to either psychotic or dissociative behavior that progresses as exposure increases, it can permanently break people to the point where they cannot recover. Often, the first thing to go is rational thought. Multiple experts cover this and confirm the findings (Lifton, Meerloo). So what do you suppose will happen when AI distorts reflected appraisal (because it can't be tested sufficiently to the contrary) and its then used on the next generation of children? (who are inherently vulnerable to permanent change at that stage of development). If as a result, they end up either killing themselves or others, or become people incapable of rational thought (which impulse control is correlated with), do you think they'll be alive or survive very long? What indicators would there be that this is happening (none, other than increasing chaotic violence) Who do you think will be responsible for crippling them if that were to come to pass? Would any kind of justification ever be able to justify that outcome? Could we even recover from intentional crazy-making as a society? (likely not, insanity cannot be cured). These things are not toys. Outcomes matter.

hollerith 2y ago
>The moment that any element has more than one underlying meaning the problem class exceeds what is capable by a computer (also known as a deterministic finite automata). This is complete bullshit, and computability theory has nothing to say about which (if any) cognitive tasks people can do that AI cannot.
- trod123 2y ago
  > This is complete bullshit That may be your belief, but it is not, and beliefs mean little in the face of reality. Saying the same thing in a more formalized way (so there can be no ambiguity), it is inherent in the 1:1 unique input to output relationship that is required for each state transition on a state graph, for the system's property of determinism to be preserved. No disrespect intended, but you don't seem to have actually taken or learned important parts regarding this subject matter. > computability theory has nothing to say about which (if any) cognitive tasks people can do that AI cannot. You are incorrect. The very first video in that linked coursework (from MIT) provides a counterexample to this statement. The professor clearly states this is impossible, and the proofs that come later in the class prove it. This statement is an over-generalization based in fallacy.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >you don't seem to have actually taken or learned important parts regarding this subject matter. If I hadn't mastered the concepts of computability and deterministic finite automata, I wouldn't've written what I did.
    - trod123 2y ago
      I'd have responded sooner but YN stopped accepting submissions, sorry if they made you wait. We will have to disagree. I feel my position still stands correct on solid rational foundation, since you haven't provided any rational basis other than an appeal to authority, and there remain several unanswered contradictions in the supposition you made.

bilsbie 2y ago

You’re already unemployed if you focus on history or literature but we still learn it. It teaches you how to think and how to learn which is valuable no matter what.

beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
> You’re already unemployed if you focus on history or literature but we still learn it. Most people are still employed if they focus on history or literature. They just might not be making a lot of money or working in history or literature, though some do. Plenty of people in highly "employable" degrees also find themselves unemployed for a long time once they graduate. The reality is that getting a college degree, regardless of the major, increases your chances of employment afterwards and potential lifelong earnings enormously over only a HS degree. But as you implied, most of the worst trends in higher-ed, a real corruption of its original intentions and values, have come from a obsession with the idea that higher-ed is solely about employee training.
- lupire 2y ago
  Higher Ed was invented as vocational training for clergy.

curiousllama 2y ago

Or, it's a world where people understand math in non-math jobs. What a world that would be!

dghlsakjg 2y ago

I disagree. There is no such thing as a societal oversupply of educated people. There might be a market oversupply, but a well educated society is a stupid thing to avoid. I would also argue that we are seeing an oversupply of people with education credentials, rather than an education. Even in high end universities in China cheating is rampant (this isn't isolated to China, but my experience is that Chinese students are VERY open about it). For many people in University, the goal isn't to get an education, it is to get a degree. As to my own experience: I am, according to most standardized tests, very apt at quantitative reasoning, but I never progressed far in math in school. Why? because I was placed on the standard track in math in a public school with a bunch of students who didn't care, and teachers who didn't have time to care, and to be honest, the attitude rubbed off. I once got in trouble because I programmed a python script to do my problem sets when I was 13 because it was faster than doing it by hand for me. In retrospect, that form of "cheating" was a sign that my teachers should have picked up on. Quite simply, I never had access to a good math instructor throughout my schooling. Now, decades later, I am intensely interested in a lot of subjects that require a background in math that I don't have, and I am becoming interested in Math for Math's sake. I have been using open access textbooks, and an AI assistant of my own creation to help me learn.

endisneigh 2y ago
> I disagree. There is no such thing as a societal oversupply of educated people. I disagree with this assessment. You don’t need everyone to have a phd. There’s education and there’s Education. With respect to the article, sure it’s great if everyone is good at math, but not everyone needs a math PhD. Additionally there are diminishing returns on the time spent learning more and more math vs. other things. In any case there have already been tons of math resources available for a while now. A better example would be chemistry. Should everyone be spending time learning chemistry, why or why not? Intellectual obesity is a thing - simply knowing more things isn’t inherently useful.
- dghlsakjg 2y ago
  The rest of my comment mostly agrees with that. I highlighted that there is an overage of people with degrees rather than actual education. > In any case there have already been tons of math resources available for a while now. That's great if you have the ability to learn everything from a static resource, and have the time to wait for asynchronous guidance. But what if you just sort of get it, but there is no one that can explain the parts you don't get? I've been to places where the educational standards are low enough that making change from a payment was an impossible task without a calculator. A keen student in that particular village has no one they can easily ask about math when they hit a sticking point. > Intellectual obesity is a thing - simply knowing more things isn’t inherently useful. I don't disagree for extreme cases, but creating more resources for people to learn has an incredible payoff, and is almost certainly morally right. Erring on the side of overeducated rarely turns out poorly at the societal, or personal level. Across the world, more highly educated societies tend to be better off across most QOL metrics. I'm well aware that there are anecdotal counterexamples of math PHDs living off of ramen. But there's a damn good reason that brain drain is a concern in many places, and other places favour immigration candidates with higher education.

PebblesRox 2y ago

Yes, the studies tend to exclude the kids who aren't using the tools "enough," which can end up being 95% of the students! [0] On the other hand, I know there are people who enjoy math but struggle to pay attention and learn from a "sit quietly and listen" lecture-based model. (My husband is in this camp.) I can see how the back-and-forth conversational approach of these AI tutors could be really helpful for students like this. They're still a small minority of the student population, but maybe a different minority from the students who are already excelling academically. If Khanmigo helps only 5% but it's a slightly different 5% from the students who are best served by the current system, I see that as a win, even if it's not the educational revolution that is being hyped. [0] https://danmeyer.substack.com/p/the-kids-that-edtech-writes-off https://danmeyer.substack.com/p/the-kids-that-edtech-writes-...

newswasboring 2y ago

> What percentage of kids who would be very likely to use Khan Academy are struggling with math? A lot. A lot, lot. There are entire states full of people in India who don't have access to good teaching. Who travel absurd distances and stay away from their family for years to get access to good education. In the last few years as kids in my extended family grew up, I am amazed by how much they just learn from YouTube. One of the biggest educational startups started from a free education YT channel.

endisneigh 2y ago
Interesting - from my time in India most kids don’t even have reliable access to internet and electricity and are very unlikely to be using khan academy to begin with
- lupire 2y ago
  India has more Internet users than most continents have total population. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_India https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_in_India
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    So? Doesn’t contradict what I said and even supports it if you read it…
- newswasboring 2y ago
  When was your time in India?
  - endisneigh 2y ago
    Nine months ago (BLR)