To emphasize, the "GPT Tutor" kids didn't do worse on the exam than the control kids, but they didn't do better either. The effect was slightly negative, statis

To emphasize, the "GPT Tutor" kids didn't do worse on the exam than the control kids, but they didn't do better either. The effect was slightly negative, statistically insignificant: > Student performance in the GPT Tutor cohort was statistically indistinguishable from that of the control cohort, and the point estimate was smaller by an order of magnitude (-0.004), suggesting minimal impact to performance in the unassisted exam. "GPT Base" would provide complete answers, but "GPT Tutor" was prompted to provide only hints. So the result is perhaps that: 1. Given the option to let a machine ("GPT Base") do their homework, many kids will lazily take it. These kids won't learn as much. 2. A machine that refuses to do their homework ("GPT Tutor") doesn't cause that problem. It doesn't seem to help either, though. I'd guess that laziness would explain most of the harm rather than mistakes made by "GPT Base", though I have no particular evidence for that. Maybe someone will repeat this study in a domain where "GPT Base" makes fewer mistakes, allowing those two effects to be distinguished. (Though would that pass ethics review, now that "GPT Base" is known to impair learning in at least some cases?)