There are at least two lessons to learn from this article. First, humans have a penchant for over-extrapolating from scientific discovery. My favorite example is soon after Röntgen discovered X-rays science fiction and comic books extrapolated a huge variety of "rays". We have such a strong yearning for great change, even as we fear it.
Second, there exists a basic "least common denominator" existence that has held since farming was invented: we are born, we live and work, we die, and between that time we live in a house, go to school, fall in love, eat, sleep, and (more recently) read. These features of human life don't change much since they are tied to our biology, which is in turn tied to the time and place of our emergence. Books are wonderful inventions - they are low cost, require no power to operate, have a very high information density, can be shared and reused over many generations of humans. They fit us so well, we will probably never "transcend" them, just like we'll probably always have diapers and pillows, no matter how far we go. And honestly, what's wrong with that?
thfuran · 36m ago
Universal public schooling in its modern form is very recent and certainly not some sort of biological imperative.
PaulHoule · 1h ago
Every public school teacher I know comes home crying from time to time because of the emotional load. The husband of my wife’s best friend is a music teacher who’s been assaulted by students multiple times. The science teacher who inspired me to study physics showed me the classroom, years later, where he teaches, and there were so many chairs packed in I asked “has the fire marshall been here?”
That is, a huge part of the job is dealing with unruly behavior and bullshit and not even instruction. If AI is going to make a positive difference in education it’s going to have to take a bite out of that!
hnlmorg · 57m ago
Absolutely.
The untold truth about teaching is that it’s equal parts social worker as educator.
Not just with bad behaviour, but with diagnosing child with needs, identifying domestic abuse, and so on.
It’s heart breaking some of the shit they need to do and which any normal person wouldn’t even consider as part of the job.
My wife has had to handle more than one incident with serious child sexual abuse. This isn’t something teachers expect to do when they apply for their jobs.
paulryanrogers · 32m ago
> My wife has had to handle more than one incident with serious child sexual abuse. This isn’t something teachers expect to do when they apply for their jobs.
My spouse also taught and heard some difficult stories of home troubles. But she did have school counselors she could recommend.
I'm not sure there is a better alternative. Someone has to be on the front lines with kids. Perhaps all kids should have to talk to a (school?) counselor or social worker periodically? It would certainly be money better spent than burning money on crypto mining, AI, or cutting taxes of the top 10%.
dkiebd · 24m ago
>The untold truth about teaching is that it’s equal parts social worker as educator.
I would say that the inclusion of women in the workforce has led to school being seen by many primarily as a form of childcare.
Whoppertime · 24m ago
And that's yet another unintended consequence of the COVID lockdowns. Teachers as social workers had trouble diagnosing domestic abuse or other problems encountered by their remote students. One of those things we will be dealing with for a long time to come
Bender · 1h ago
I've heard similar anecdotes. I am of the opinion that AI can't fix that. That will require school boards and parents willing to change budget allocation to school police and local governments that implement zero tolerance on [instigating] violence. Parents of violent kids will of course get upset and emit crocodile tears because their "little darling" would "never hurt anyone". Cameras in classrooms, body cams on teachers, school police and lock up the little darlings will take a bite out of it. Short of that and we just lose more good teachers. Kids can earn back camera free classrooms once the violent ones are weeded out.
I would put the AI in juvenile hall to teach the violent kids. It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.
trinix912 · 46m ago
You don’t need any creepy surveillance tech, just teachers with the proper rights to punish those who violate the rules.
As long as teachers can’t say or do anything without parents rushing to the school and threatening with lawsuits, nothing will change, no matter how much surveillance tech we throw at the problem.
CafeRacer · 40m ago
Yep, a proper whack, in my opinion, will solve many problems.
Also it should legally be allowed to whack a parent, as long as it is justified.
Bender · 35m ago
That is what school police or local police and sheriff are for. They are taught when whacking or more is appropriate and their job requires they accept the risk. Teachers should not be required to accept this risk even if they are physically capable.
thfuran · 31m ago
Cops in the U.S. don’t accept risk; they shoot whatever makes them nervous.
bombcar · 59m ago
You can’t require mandatory attendance AND have zero-X policies. It’s impossible. Something has to give.
dsego · 54m ago
Not everybody even deserves school. Unfortunately, society benefits from everyone having at least some education, so making school non compulsory could have more detrimental effects with overall poorer education in the populace.
With that said, I'm all for removing disruptive kids from classrooms, but they would need a more controlled environment, which is hardly feasible.
Bender · 57m ago
The attendance of the violent kids will have to give.
logicchains · 53m ago
I'd wager if anyone actually studied the effect of mandatory attendance on that bottom percentile of persistently violent, disruptive students, they'd find almost no improvement in their outcomes. Yet their presence has a demonstrable negative effect on other students and teachers alike. The right approach would be to base attendance policies on science, not wishful ideology.
thfuran · 33m ago
>zero tolerance on violence
Why do you think kids should be punished for getting bullied?
Bender · 24m ago
Edited to say instigating violence.
TimorousBestie · 57m ago
> Cameras in classrooms, body cams on teachers, school police and lock up the little darlings will take a bite out of it.
This has been the status quo in many schools for a while now. Whether or not it helped is unclear and a subject of ongoing debate. If you want things to change, you need a novel intervention.
As for zero tolerance policies, they are exhausting to implement and feel deeply unjust to everyone involved. Having to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good. But if one doesn’t, the policy is no longer zero tolerance.
Bender · 56m ago
Having to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good.
If they are expelled for defending themselves the policies need to change. The cameras should provide evidence they were defending themselves. When enough violent kids are removed the incidence of having to defend one's self should be reduced with time.
RHSeeger · 51m ago
That's the point though; zero-tolerance means that the cause doesn't matter. Defending yourself means you participated in violence and you're punished for it. Zero-tolerance is a horrible idea in general, and only sense in the context of protecting the institution from liability.
Bender · 48m ago
That's the point though; zero-tolerance means that the cause doesn't matter.
Your definition of zero tolerance does not align with mine. Mine is that there is the instigators are removed from the picture without question or debate and everyone else continues on with their education in a safer space. When a school also punishes those defending themselves they and their board members must be sued.
Allowing violent instigators is one of the many ways we end up with mass shooters. That and bad diets, off label prescription drugs.
I might even push for creating curriculum for teaching how to deal with violent and/or unstable people both online and in person and grade people on how well they defend themselves online and in person.
> A zero-tolerance policy is one which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule. Zero-tolerance policies forbid people in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a predetermined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history.
If you use "zero tolerance" to mean "zero tolerance for starting a fight" you need to make that very clear, because that's not how it's used in schools currently.
Bender · 31m ago
because that's not how it's used in schools currently.
That's school districts being lazy. That is clearly the first thing that need to be prioritized and resolved nation wide in all first world countries. The instigators must be removed from the picture without debate.
StevenWaterman · 29m ago
We already have a phrase for "if you start a fight you get punished"
The phrase is "normal, non-zero-tolerance policy"
Bender · 13m ago
As long as "if you start a fight you get punished" includes verbiage that means kicking out the instigator without debate regardless of crocodile tears and threats of lawsuit then I'm fine with that. The end result must be zero tolerance of instigating violence.
TimorousBestie · 50m ago
If you don’t like this outcome, you should not support zero tolerance policies.
Zero tolerance denotes a policy where the root causes do not affect the consequences.
There’s no zero tolerance policy where “providing evidence” is an effective defense.
Bender · 43m ago
This is a retcon of the original meaning of zero tolerance. Zero tolerance means the instigators are removed from the picture without question. If it is documented or implemented otherwise then we will have to fix it and schools will have to stop being lazy.
xyzzy123 · 1h ago
> It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.
It's not very clear cut but sometimes it seems like kids just end up being punished for having bad parents.
diggan · 56m ago
> it seems like kids just end up being punished for having bad parents
Yeah, hard to make the right call, depends on the age and maturity of the kid I guess. I myself is a product of "bad parents", and it was reflected in my own behavior up until I was 15-16 years old, when I started realizing what I was doing really had an impact on my fellow humans, so at one point I started consciously working on myself to not be like that anymore.
So a 6 year old will most definitely just be a product of how the parents act, but once you get older you need to also take responsibility for how you yourself are as a person. What exact age that is seems to differ by country.
Marazan · 44m ago
This is the crux of the matter and any "solution" offered that ignores that young children are primarily the product of their parenting is no solution at all
Bender · 23m ago
Well, this gets dark really fast but the scientific solution is to sterilize the kids and their parents to end a bad blood line. Obviously that will never be legal to do. It won't solve doctors prescribing off-label anti-psychotic drugs, people eating garbage and excessive drinking of fermented crap which leads to compulsive behavior.
diggan · 1m ago
> but the scientific solution is to sterilize the kids and their parents to end a bad blood line
Not even a good solution, the amount of good people we'd be missing out on would be huge. Plenty of great people come from shit parents/backgrounds.
SnuffBox · 59m ago
> I would put the AI in juvenile hall to teach the violent kids. It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.
I feel that this would only further embitter the violent children and would cause more problems than it would theoretically solve.
astura · 50m ago
>I would put the AI in juvenile hall to teach the violent kids. It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.
Children didn't "earn" being born to shit heads. Fuck off.
Bender · 19m ago
Children didn't "earn" being born to shit heads. Fuck off.
No thanks. If it can be proven the parents are negligent or responsible there are processes in place for this too. Whether or not a state or provincial government has the wherewithal to invoke the process is another question.
smitty1e · 57m ago
Maybe the word "public" deserves more attention.
Taxing people to fund education seems to be reducing the product to glorified day care.
Those with means (and I would be one) send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons.
This deserves more analysis.
RHSeeger · 54m ago
> Those with means (and I would be one) send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons.
I don't think this is true at all. There are plenty of areas where the public schools do a fantastic job, and plenty of people "with means" sending their children there.
logicchains · 51m ago
Those are mostly areas where the cost of living prevents the most dysfunctional families/kids from living there.
trinix912 · 44m ago
Rich people have shithead kids too, I’ve seen this in a country where the rich send their kids to public schools.
impossiblefork · 31m ago
Obviously an orderly school is preferable to a disorderly school, but I doubt it's enough.
I am completely convinced by the arguments for individual tutoring. I got some in languages and I liked the outcome (it was also a fun social thing to do with my parents). It would have saved a lot of time to also get it in maths, physics, chemistry and biology.
notpachet · 49m ago
> Those with means (and I would be one) send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons.
Private schools can reject problem kids, so the "both defect" case doesn't really apply as long as the school is selective (which for schools catering to rich people is the entire point).
threetonesun · 42m ago
Public education is considered one of the greatest successes of the 20th century, if you have a better idea might I suggest you and your techno-libertarian brethren try it on the Moon, or whatever other non-Earth body your amazing education has convinced you will support life.
solatic · 14m ago
There is a qualitative difference to the argument: lectures (from before millennia), books (in the last few hundred years), and movies (in the last few decades), were all non-interactive. A student would sit and consume passively. There is a limit to how well you can learn with passive instruction alone. The promise of AI is to bring the Oxford model - 1:1 studying with a tutor, with whom the student engages and to whom the tutor gives their full attention - down to a price point at which it would become feasible to educate the masses with it.
Are LLMs actually capable of re-producing a good-enough simulation of the Oxford model? Will this simulation of the Oxford model produce better educational outcomes at scale - something that has been theorized but was of course far too expensive to prove - when deployed to the masses through public education? Maybe? Who knows? Time will tell.
For what it's worth - I don't think books will become obsolete, either in schools or anywhere else. Paper books might become obsolete, but there is no option on the table that proposes to completely replace the art of science of having life experience and committing it to longform. As long as copyright protects its commercialibility, it will continue.
thefaux · 22m ago
There is a naive belief that media does not matter so long as the same content is presented. For various reasons, I believe books are far better learning tools than digital devices for most things. Among other things, memory is linked to place and space. A physical book is a link to the real world that grounds the learning in space and differentiates it from other materials. My theory, based on my personal experience, is that reading a physical book, you have an experience with that object that helps link the content into the spacial memory system.
Physical books can be totemic symbols of learning. Just having them around is a reminder of what you've learned, or what you've been putting off if they remain unread.
Physical books are also wonderful gifts that digital can never replicate. A wise old man once gave me a book that he cherished and had been given to him in commemoration of his contribution to its production (it was a very important book). Every one of the hundreds of pages was filled with many of his annotations. Whenever I read from it, I am connected to him and his study. What would be the equivalent for digital? Giving someone a used phone?
jillesvangurp · 35m ago
As somebody that used to drag about 10kg worth of books back and forth to high school in the eighties, I don't think getting rid of that is necessarily that bad. And there are only so many books you can drag with you. And most of the educational books were pretty crappy and uninspiring as I recall.
Modern kids can have access to a wealth of information. AIs doing what teachers don't have time to do might actually be an improvement. I had some great teachers that went above and beyond, and also quite a few burned out not so great ones too. Modern schools weren't created to enlighten people but to turn kids into productive factory workers meeting bare minimum standards. Historically, there always was a big difference between the rich and the poor on this front. And whisking away the few smart kids and training those up properly was something left for higher education.
Modern tech creates potential for more bespoke and tailored teaching but also lots of challenges for teachers.
raldi · 35m ago
I’ve learned a lot more from talking directly to people, watching videos, participating in forums, and doing things than I ever have from books. This is especially true now. I’m not sure the 1913 take was wrong.
For the past year or so, whenever I’ve wanted to learn something from a book, I’ve downloaded the Kindle edition, converted to plain text, given it to Claude, and asked it to tutor me chapter by chapter.
softwaredoug · 32m ago
I cannot focus on much when “learning” on a digital device. There’s always some social media to distract me. I suspect paper books may be one of the few tools available to educators to get students to actually unplug and focus.
zkmon · 49m ago
That prediction is assuming everything else to remain static. Why are the children learning in school? What should they be learning? What exactly is the goal of schooling? What future work are they training for?
A lot of projections for future trends are made using isolated contexts, as if the world around them is not moving or changing.
akkad33 · 32m ago
Reads like an AI written linkedin post
1270018080 · 38m ago
A top shovel seller claiming shovels are going to replace books in school
Second, there exists a basic "least common denominator" existence that has held since farming was invented: we are born, we live and work, we die, and between that time we live in a house, go to school, fall in love, eat, sleep, and (more recently) read. These features of human life don't change much since they are tied to our biology, which is in turn tied to the time and place of our emergence. Books are wonderful inventions - they are low cost, require no power to operate, have a very high information density, can be shared and reused over many generations of humans. They fit us so well, we will probably never "transcend" them, just like we'll probably always have diapers and pillows, no matter how far we go. And honestly, what's wrong with that?
That is, a huge part of the job is dealing with unruly behavior and bullshit and not even instruction. If AI is going to make a positive difference in education it’s going to have to take a bite out of that!
The untold truth about teaching is that it’s equal parts social worker as educator.
Not just with bad behaviour, but with diagnosing child with needs, identifying domestic abuse, and so on.
It’s heart breaking some of the shit they need to do and which any normal person wouldn’t even consider as part of the job.
My wife has had to handle more than one incident with serious child sexual abuse. This isn’t something teachers expect to do when they apply for their jobs.
My spouse also taught and heard some difficult stories of home troubles. But she did have school counselors she could recommend.
I'm not sure there is a better alternative. Someone has to be on the front lines with kids. Perhaps all kids should have to talk to a (school?) counselor or social worker periodically? It would certainly be money better spent than burning money on crypto mining, AI, or cutting taxes of the top 10%.
I would say that the inclusion of women in the workforce has led to school being seen by many primarily as a form of childcare.
I would put the AI in juvenile hall to teach the violent kids. It will be a dystopian environment but they earned it and can earn their way out of it.
As long as teachers can’t say or do anything without parents rushing to the school and threatening with lawsuits, nothing will change, no matter how much surveillance tech we throw at the problem.
Also it should legally be allowed to whack a parent, as long as it is justified.
Why do you think kids should be punished for getting bullied?
This has been the status quo in many schools for a while now. Whether or not it helped is unclear and a subject of ongoing debate. If you want things to change, you need a novel intervention.
As for zero tolerance policies, they are exhausting to implement and feel deeply unjust to everyone involved. Having to suspend or expel a student for defending themselves never feels good. But if one doesn’t, the policy is no longer zero tolerance.
If they are expelled for defending themselves the policies need to change. The cameras should provide evidence they were defending themselves. When enough violent kids are removed the incidence of having to defend one's self should be reduced with time.
Your definition of zero tolerance does not align with mine. Mine is that there is the instigators are removed from the picture without question or debate and everyone else continues on with their education in a safer space. When a school also punishes those defending themselves they and their board members must be sued.
Allowing violent instigators is one of the many ways we end up with mass shooters. That and bad diets, off label prescription drugs.
I might even push for creating curriculum for teaching how to deal with violent and/or unstable people both online and in person and grade people on how well they defend themselves online and in person.
> A zero-tolerance policy is one which imposes a punishment for every infraction of a stated rule. Zero-tolerance policies forbid people in positions of authority from exercising discretion or changing punishments to fit the circumstances subjectively; they are required to impose a predetermined punishment regardless of individual culpability, extenuating circumstances, or history.
If you use "zero tolerance" to mean "zero tolerance for starting a fight" you need to make that very clear, because that's not how it's used in schools currently.
That's school districts being lazy. That is clearly the first thing that need to be prioritized and resolved nation wide in all first world countries. The instigators must be removed from the picture without debate.
The phrase is "normal, non-zero-tolerance policy"
Zero tolerance denotes a policy where the root causes do not affect the consequences.
There’s no zero tolerance policy where “providing evidence” is an effective defense.
It's not very clear cut but sometimes it seems like kids just end up being punished for having bad parents.
Yeah, hard to make the right call, depends on the age and maturity of the kid I guess. I myself is a product of "bad parents", and it was reflected in my own behavior up until I was 15-16 years old, when I started realizing what I was doing really had an impact on my fellow humans, so at one point I started consciously working on myself to not be like that anymore.
So a 6 year old will most definitely just be a product of how the parents act, but once you get older you need to also take responsibility for how you yourself are as a person. What exact age that is seems to differ by country.
Not even a good solution, the amount of good people we'd be missing out on would be huge. Plenty of great people come from shit parents/backgrounds.
I feel that this would only further embitter the violent children and would cause more problems than it would theoretically solve.
Children didn't "earn" being born to shit heads. Fuck off.
No thanks. If it can be proven the parents are negligent or responsible there are processes in place for this too. Whether or not a state or provincial government has the wherewithal to invoke the process is another question.
Taxing people to fund education seems to be reducing the product to glorified day care.
Those with means (and I would be one) send their kids to private schools for a variety of reasons.
This deserves more analysis.
I don't think this is true at all. There are plenty of areas where the public schools do a fantastic job, and plenty of people "with means" sending their children there.
I am completely convinced by the arguments for individual tutoring. I got some in languages and I liked the outcome (it was also a fun social thing to do with my parents). It would have saved a lot of time to also get it in maths, physics, chemistry and biology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
Are LLMs actually capable of re-producing a good-enough simulation of the Oxford model? Will this simulation of the Oxford model produce better educational outcomes at scale - something that has been theorized but was of course far too expensive to prove - when deployed to the masses through public education? Maybe? Who knows? Time will tell.
For what it's worth - I don't think books will become obsolete, either in schools or anywhere else. Paper books might become obsolete, but there is no option on the table that proposes to completely replace the art of science of having life experience and committing it to longform. As long as copyright protects its commercialibility, it will continue.
Physical books can be totemic symbols of learning. Just having them around is a reminder of what you've learned, or what you've been putting off if they remain unread.
Physical books are also wonderful gifts that digital can never replicate. A wise old man once gave me a book that he cherished and had been given to him in commemoration of his contribution to its production (it was a very important book). Every one of the hundreds of pages was filled with many of his annotations. Whenever I read from it, I am connected to him and his study. What would be the equivalent for digital? Giving someone a used phone?
Modern kids can have access to a wealth of information. AIs doing what teachers don't have time to do might actually be an improvement. I had some great teachers that went above and beyond, and also quite a few burned out not so great ones too. Modern schools weren't created to enlighten people but to turn kids into productive factory workers meeting bare minimum standards. Historically, there always was a big difference between the rich and the poor on this front. And whisking away the few smart kids and training those up properly was something left for higher education.
Modern tech creates potential for more bespoke and tailored teaching but also lots of challenges for teachers.
For the past year or so, whenever I’ve wanted to learn something from a book, I’ve downloaded the Kindle edition, converted to plain text, given it to Claude, and asked it to tutor me chapter by chapter.
A lot of projections for future trends are made using isolated contexts, as if the world around them is not moving or changing.