Let me see if I can put into words the objections I have to "AI in education" First of all, what is "AI"? I mean that in a literal operational sense: can you

Let me see if I can put into words the objections I have to "AI in education" First of all, what is "AI"? I mean that in a literal operational sense: can you even explain the math and machinery that you're talking about? Because if you cannot, then you are advocating strapping children into Black Boxes (containing that rugby mascot!) that you don't even understand what they are, and that means you're nuts and should not be allowed anywhere near children. Obviously, with Andrej Karpathy that's not the problem, but assuming that a person actually knows WTF they are even talking about with "AI", "AI in education" is still a bad idea. First and foremost, consider the question of what even is a human being? And consider it in light of the contrast between us and our nearest living relatives the chimpanzees. What makes humans different than apes? Well, it's thought and language and higher reasoning, and self-awareness, eh? We do not fully understand how human brains do this, make these phenomenon happen. We do know that the process of becoming a human being is partially automatic (e.g. learning language) and partially the result of deliberate self-work. The thesis of the "AI in education" people seems to be that this yet-mysterious process can and should be turned over to automatic machines, typically for economic (rather than social or philosophical) reasons. Children taught by machine will think like that machine, to the extent that they think at all. Metaphorically, it is as if these folks want to strap children into wheelchairs on the theory that that will make them better runners. This brings me to the second objection: use it or lose it. If we rely on external devices to do our thinking for us our brains turn to jelly. It started with the written word, as noted by what's-his-name a couple thousand years ago, turning the faculty of memory into the mere faculty of recall. (If you don't know the difference between memory and recall you are doubtless the victim of just such a degenerate "education" system as these folk are proposing to intensify with automation.) It's not difficult to learn to use your brain well. Unfortunately the knowledge of how to do this is still not recognized by mainstream conventional education systems. E.g.: you don't need memory aids if you just use self-hypnosis and mnemonics to "just remember". You don't need to learn to spell, you just need to learn the correct spelling strategy and then your brain spells for you, correctly, every time (you can even spell things backwards without any effort.) There is a lot of low-hanging fruit in terms of ways to make education better, but automation is completely useless for it, because things that can be automated are not important human activities. Just as it's pointless to make a robot jog for you or eat for you it is pointless to make a robot think for you. To sum up: 1) Becoming human is something only other humans can help you do. Machines can't make you human, they can only train you. 2) Using artificial aids rather than one's own natural faculties is regressive. (It's like using a wheelchair when you legs work fine.) "AI in education" is oxymoronic, pernicious, and even dangerous. People who want to strap children into mysterious black boxes should be kept away from them (the children, not the black boxes.)