This articles core argument appears to be that a live instruction is better than a video because there can be feedback at the moment of confusion while a video

This articles core argument appears to be that a live instruction is better than a video because there can be feedback at the moment of confusion while a video can't. But that depends on student's impulse being triggered and I'm not sure if its any better or in some cases can be worse if the teachers content is not as thorough as Khan's or anyone else's video - as these benefit from a worldwide audiences feedback on correcting any confusing or unclear parts. In the classrooms I see through my kids, the teacher is doing roughly what a Khan video does: walking through a worked procedure at the front of the room. If a video fails to provoke the "wait, why does that work?" moment, then a teacher following the same flow likely fails in exactly the same way as the author claims and missing the opportunity for hands'on learning. A video actually allows the learner to go back and review content if anything was unclear, and presumably any interactive AI agent can help with the feedback part even though the teacher in the video isn't. I also wish the piece had stayed with Khanmigo, where nobody has a good theory yet on where the ai tutoring loop actually breaks and why people fail to engage it and that putting it in their face may not work, why exactly personalization at that scale hasn't produced the gains it promised. Also irked by the title built on a pun on Khan's name, sets up an awkward framing that kind of lets me know it may not be unbiased.