Jonathan Haidt: AI Is the 'Neutron Bomb for Education' [video]

zamalek

AI merely exposes the inherent flaws in how we do education (exams, especially failure) - which I personally and honestly don't have a solution for. Both the carrot and the stick rip out some of the gold that is human potential (while instilling some useful skills and behavior). The knee-jerk reaction of banning AI is probably the wrong choice, people need to learn where the limits are, but I also wouldn't be able to suggest a framework where students aren't rewarded for skirting around being educated.

gruez

Haidt doesn't have the greatest track record[1] when it comes to diagnosing society's ills, but in this case he does appear to be on the right side: https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC963/ https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC965/ https://infographics.economist.com/2026/20260822_WOC839/ For most kids, AI is a detriment, but for a minority (smartest? most self motivated?) it's a boost. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Anxious_Generation#Academi...

karahime

No, it isn't

joshdavham

This video is 40 minutes. Could someone summarize Haidt’s view? Haidt generally has very interesting opinions but I don’t have time to listen to this this morning unfortunately.

HPsquared

Just like other "inferior replacements", many people aren't getting the real thing at all and the fake version is better than nothing.

coreyburnsdev

what would be wrong with using AI only in /learning mode? I've used it this way before and found it even more useful than my memory of some teachers I had. If it was locked to this mode and you could not just generate answers I don't see the harm.

0xbadcafebee

If we had AI when I was a kid, and you sat me down in front of a computer with AI, and told me to learn about sub-Saharan Africa and write a report manually, of course I would try to automate it. But it would be so much easier for me to learn with, because I have a learning disability, and my own style of learning new information. Academia relies on teaching everyone the same way, which advantages some kids and disadvantages others. AI could potentially help more kids. To say nothing of increasing access to education, which so often depends on how wealthy the school district is.

oldsklgdfth

Got a story. The other day I can back from some exercise and made a protein shake. Took a moment to consider why. It's a routine from when I trained more and at the time it was worth doing to improve nutrition and recovery. On this specific day, I just went to the gym to move my body. But the habit of the shake remain, even through it likely did not contribute much. I say this because I've been eating and sleeping lousy and those are the first things to address. But this advanced optimization remained. I remembered that I don't listen to music when I run. Because for me it is a crutch. If the music is hype, I run too fast. If it's the wrong song late in a run, I stop and maybe switch the song. Either way, it keeps me from pushing me. Pushing me that day and pushing me in general to grow. AI is the ultimate crutch for me. It's pumping out exactly what I intended, I'm hype. It's missing the bit, I give up. The common denominator is that it's one more thing to keep me from thinking harder, pushing myself, basking in the discomfort. And I think that is the problem with tools. The more you lean on them, the more you atrophy in that realm. There's something about friction that switches on the learning part of the brain. Education, more generally, growth is all about the right amount of friction or stimuli to promote growth. In the past, the friction was too high and on average people did not grow. But as the friction drops, the education doesn't proportionally increase. Because we like our crutches and cling to them. To play devil's advocate, I use the socratic method in my chats and get a lot out of it, that I otherwise wouldn't have bothered to learn.

oldsklgdfth

I'm a big Neil Postman fanboy and he wrote two books. This conversation is in the intersection of the two. Technopoly[0] on how society is now organized with technology as the end as well as the means. Technology giveth and taketh. There are winners and losers. Winners are those make use of the new technology. Losers are those that cannot. The more technology permeates our lives, the more this disparity will permeate society. The End of Education[1] discusses the purpose of education and ways to pursue that end. The end of public education, in his view, is to create a public. A society with common goals and a common narrative. What I appreciate about Postman's writing is his restraint in calling something "good" or "bad", but rather looking at tradeoffs. Posing the question of if the tradeoffs are acceptable for our ends. I walk away optimistic from his readings. Haidt is more gloomy and likes romanticizing his "past". He contrasts pressing images on glass in texting to the feeling of picking up the phone to call a friend, but ignores that the telephone itself had profound impacts on society. Shout out to Amusing Ourselves to Death[2] which develops ideas around how visual mediums, ie video, carry different messages than say text. Dovetails nicely into the social media conversation. But it broadens your view of TV and its impact. One day I'll get around to writing "Prompting Ourselves to Death" as an hommage. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technopoly [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_Education [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death