> We actually work hard to make sure a child knows they aren't talking to something real - that they're talking to a computer program.
The problem is not talking to a computer program. Kids have been using computers in school long before LLMs.
The problem is teaching a child to trust what the non-deterministic system is guessing at them. That will carry forward in their life.
You’re teaching them that an LLM is right, not just what it is.
As an aside, I’m also not sure about the certainty of what “making sure” a 4-year old knows is real or not is.
> If your kid gets everything they need from their school, their home, their private tutor and so on, then great.
That’s a powerful emotional point made to shut down criticism. Except it has nothing to do with putting a kid in front of LLMs.
I expressly mentioned this in my comment. You could create a mountain of educational material, apps, and tools with LLM assistance and verify it. Same result.
-> You could create a mountain of educational material, apps, and tools with LLM assistance and verify it. Same result.
I very strongly disagree with this. Teaching is not the same as a bunch of educational material and apps. The use of AI in education does not replace teachers, but it can get much closer to the responsive, learner centered, high-touch learning experiences that teachers provide, and that are proven to deliver the best outcomes.
-> That’s a powerful emotional point made to shut down criticism.
You made a blanket statement - without any substantive points - that we shouldn't put LLMs in front of kids. I was arguing that there are advantages that we should take into account, not trying to shut down criticism.
-> not sure about the certainty of what “making sure” a 4-year old knows is real or not is.
I agree. We're being very cautious here. My co-founder, who is a clinical child psychologist, has a blog post on exactly this you can find it in the footer of our website.)
We’re going to disagree about the quality of LLM learning experiences.
As an educator I’ve used them a lot for myself and in teaching others. Good for one-off topics if you check facts and a lot of human educators have built good quality content that it rips off.
LLMs are rather terrible at an extended progressive curriculum.
That said, the core thesis was simple: it’s dangerous to teach children to trust LLMs.
Not what they are. That they’re right. Which they aren’t. A lot.
You said you largely agreed with that. So, what’s the approach within this service to mitigate that?
I appreciate you responding but you’re throwing a lot of “but X” when the question is “what about Y”.
The problem is not talking to a computer program. Kids have been using computers in school long before LLMs.
The problem is teaching a child to trust what the non-deterministic system is guessing at them. That will carry forward in their life.
You’re teaching them that an LLM is right, not just what it is.
As an aside, I’m also not sure about the certainty of what “making sure” a 4-year old knows is real or not is.
> If your kid gets everything they need from their school, their home, their private tutor and so on, then great.
That’s a powerful emotional point made to shut down criticism. Except it has nothing to do with putting a kid in front of LLMs.
I expressly mentioned this in my comment. You could create a mountain of educational material, apps, and tools with LLM assistance and verify it. Same result.