The reality is, most 5 year olds don’t get access to the resources most of us have had while growing up. People are saying, “kids should have human tutors.” Guys, most people in the world don’t have any tutors! What Ello has built and other forms of AI-based tutoring is going to raise the average level of education and literacy in the world. Especially in developing countries. Let individual parents decide what’s best for their kids.
5 year old kids should have enough play time with their peers and develop their social skills, instead of being sat in front of a screen with any kind of content. I feel a parallel between this and people defending short form video saying "but sometimes it's educational!" (it's not).
Most of them don't get access. So let's hook them up to an insane, unproven, unpredictable autocomplete math equation and entrust it to their development as a human being.
* An AI tutor is a net positive in learning for the subject matter it covers.
* An AI tutor does not cause other harms.
* An AI tutor is going to be cheap enough that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor.
I'm mostly willing to give the benefit of the doubt on the first point, but the third point seems unlikely, and history has given us no shortage of reasons to distrust tech companies on the second point, even if we assume this company can be trusted now.
The second one feels like a subset of the first. If it’s net positive, the other harms are worth it.
And I don’t think you’re really engaging with what they said, which is that it might be better than nothing, which is what is realistically available to many kids. Do you really think something like this is worse than nothing?
I limited the first point to specifically deal with learning the subject matter, but I added the second point to account for any negative externalities which may fall outside that.
A small (contrived) example: a child uses an AI tutor because they're falling behind in mathematics. The tutor does an excellent job at getting the child back up to speed and improving his/her grades in math, but the child then starts becoming dependent on AI tutors for all subjects because they've either lost interest or capability for self-learning.
We've already seen a study or two indicate extended use of AI coding agents causes some people to lose their own coding ability over time, making them dependent upon the agents. It doesn't seem far-fetched that children could become dependent upon AI tutors in a similar fashion.
That's not to mention that AI tutors require children to have computer access, which would ultimately cement in place school laptop programs I was under the impression were neutral to net negative in and of themselves.
So yes, in short, I think AI tutors have the potential to be worse than nothing. I'm not asserting they are, but I'd like to see some studies done on the topic before rolling them out for children en masse.
* An AI tutor is a net negative in learning for the subject matter it covers.
* An AI tutor does cause other harms.
* An AI tutor is going to be more expensive that someone who cannot afford a human tutor will still be able to afford an AI tutor.
Seriously, my first reaction to reading this headline was a knee jerk "are you insane", but this whole thread is just people arguing out of their arse while claiming authority. As of today, it was never attempted. It is also possible that the kids gain an advantage by learning to use llms to teach themselves things, which would be positive for their future.
I don't think it's going to happen, but that's just my opinion based on essentially prejudice, not a fact
Yeah tell them to change things.. why didn't we think of that? Provide opportunities to make parenting less stressful like here so that they can involve more.. this reflexive anti AI luddite attitude isn't productive as it's just less signal and more noise..
> We should be wary of all new technology until it’s proven to be a benefit to society.
Nope. Any nation that thinks like this will be outcompeted by more tech-positive nations in the long-term. It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.
>It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.
Here's one study from last year (1000 students) [1]. They showed that improved outcomes with AI are short term, and likely a result of AI doing the work for the student. Their methodology involved a test without the use of AI at a later date, and one of the groups who used AI tested much worse than the control group who did not use AI during learning.
Moreover, a tertiary group that used a specially trained AI for tutoring showed no improvement in testing outcomes over the control group.
[1] Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakçı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). "Generative AI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning: Evidence from High School Mathematics." PNAS, 122. PNAS
In many ways electricity is bad for society. In this particular case I think the benefits outweigh the costs. I do not the think the benefits of AI outweigh the costs.
That's awfully reductive there, champ. Most critiques of AI are based on some combination of observed failings of the technology, observed failings of the tech industry writ large, and healthy skepticism in the face of Yet Another Tech Industry Hype Typhoon. Anyway, the burden of proof isn't on skeptics, it's on the technology and it's proponents, so let's see some receipts before we agree to squander limited public resources on unproven systems yeah?
>Most critiques of AI are based on some combination of observed failings of the technology
Most critiques of AI are based on experience with the cheapest AI available a year ago, by midwits unable to recognize that AI's performance on the Putnam, IMO and bar exam makes it far smarter than they are by almost every metric that was traditionally used to measure intelligence.
To make my earlier critique of your argument clearer, some applications of AI might be bad for society, but it does not follow that the tutoring application is also bad for society.
Nobody has tried to systematically apply AI tutoring for adults. AI tutoring for children is easier because there are more people who understand the domains that need to be taught to children and can evaluate if the children have grasped the concepts appropriately.
It is clear that a personal human tutor can achieve incredible results, and almost everybody who has revolutionized any field you might think of is a product of such a system. Scaling that would be immensely valuable to society.
We should do it because of the huge benefits to society. The fact that it is easier than doing something with marginal benefit is why we should do it first.
The aforementioned people who revolutionized their fields are the demonstrated benefits. If we're going to stop a technology that could multiply that before it even gets to testing, it shouldn't be done on vibes.
It does not follow that anything produced by an electronic computational device is bad for children or society. I've personally seen computers teach children barely two years old to read.
Anecdote < Data. Studies consistently show declines in every trackable metric associated with education when computational devices are introduced to the process. Until actual data is presented that contradicts these findings there's no grounds for rational debate.
> Studies consistently show declines in every trackable metric associated with education when computational devices are introduced to the process.
They're doing it wrong, just as the incentives in the classroom are wrong (to increase a number showing how many children meet some artificially low standard of competency). The rational debate comes from the hundreds of people who are doing it right on their own. These days, all the top chess players practice with an engine. All the top mathletes use AoPS tools. It's the same across every academic field, and the level at which the top is performing is far beyond what it was before computers were introduced. The amount of effort it would take to teach a barely two year old to read is far beyond what most parents have to give, but with an electronic device patiently saying letter sounds whenever an infant interacts with letters, it's trivial.
I look forward to your nomination for Secretary of Education since you appear to have a handle on something trained professionals on two continents backed by billion dollar industries have failed to master.
I already told you that their incentives are wrong. Meanwhile, the people training the elite in any field use computers extensively and have been doing so for years.
The industry hype mill and it's attendant horde of touts are working overtime to make sure the dude that mows my lawn is up to date on AI, so I'm not sure how you're going to advance the argument that anyone routinely posting to the epicenter of the AI hype typhoon is some how poorly informed on the topic.
Probably when it stops agreeing with me when I tell it that industrial quantities of garlic salt are an acceptable substitution for coco powder in a chocolate mousse recipe...
This particular use case is having it respond to prompts from 5-year old, so it really really needs to be able to answer correctly to questions of that type.
It's not silly, it's just the most convenient and broadly relatable failure mode. I mean, I could compile a 20 bullet point copypasta detailing everything from prompt injection to exfiltration of sensitive data as-a-feature but if touts are willing to stoop to ignoring all of that while arguing obvious reductio ad absurdum at face value there appears to be little point at tilting that windmill. The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle is definitely winning here.
I am sure you must have been to many developing countries to make that statement and are not just talking out of your behind.
But the ground reality is that they don't lack tutors or educators. They lack classrooms, they lack infrastrucutre, they lack nutrition. Solving those problems will actually incrase literacy in the world, not an AI bot.
> But the ground reality is that they don't lack tutors or educators.
As someone from a developing country: you are wrong. Lack of teachers (and especially GOOD teachers) is a big issue. Lack of infrastructure is also an issue, though.
You think I'm not from a developing country and just astroturfing these comments? Children need nutrition and infrastructure. If you develop the two, GOOD teachers will also come from the system. If you put an AI chatbot in an Indian school in a village which does not have water security or proper nutrition for kids or lack of proper school buildings, you think it'll change things because kids can talk to an LLM?
Infrastructure is THE issue. If we solve it, we can solve the teachers issue as well (i.e. finding GOOD teachers) but we already do not lack when it comes to teachers in numbers. This AI bot thing is bullshit western posturing that ignores the ground problems and is trying to make money off poverty. Look through the lines and what they are saying.
"AI-based tutoring is going to raise the average level of education and literacy in the world"
Without exception every claim made to date about tech boosting educational outcomes has been provably false. As in, adding tech to the education process results in measurably less education, and this finding seems to track across all age cohorts. Furthermore, unless parents have significant education credentials they aren't qualified to make informed decisions on what's best for their kids in this context.
In practice, yes. In theory a machines can do about everything a human can, but better and cheaper.
One of the main constraint for education is available tutor time, see e.g. Bloom's 2 sigma experiment.
Obviously there are many pitfalls to overcome at the moment, but eventually machines will become better teachers than teachers, and not many parents will send their kids to public schools if the kids can learn much faster at home while being happier.
> In practice, yes. In theory a machines can do about everything a human can, but better and cheaper.
If you could time-travel back to your 5y old self, would you prefer to be taught by AI tutor given the current state o/t art, or taught by whatever teachers you did have when you were 5? (with all the existing hallucination, breaking through guardrails etc problems of current AI in mind)
If you'd have a ~5y old yourself, what would your prefer for your kid?
> One of the main constraint for education is available tutor time, see e.g. Bloom's 2 sigma experiment.
Interesting! Also note a caveat (quoted from Wikipedia):
The phenomenon's associated problem, as described by Bloom, was to "find methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring".
Perhaps it would be better to focus on that problem?
> and not many parents will send their kids to public schools if the kids can learn much faster at home while being happier.
How do you see peer-to-peer contact in that scenario? Toddlers on a video conference call hours a day? Physical contact is a basic need for humans. Especially kids.
> eventually machines will become better teachers than teachers
Ah yes: WILL (and although likely, not guaranteed). How about re-evaluate our options & stragegies once that's the case?
On the place of schools and peer-to-peer interaction:
My oldest is about to start kindergarten in a few weeks. From what I can gather, she's already reading at approximately a mid-2nd grade level and doing math at a late-1st grade level. I expect that divergence would only grow if I kept her at home. So I already firmly believe my kids would learn much faster at home, and this is with us sporadically spending maybe 10-20 minutes on some days doing intentional, structured learning. School is apparently 7 hours 5 days a week, which seems insane to me. We have federal proposals to reduce the definition of full-time to 32 hours for an adult.
From that perspective then, my wish already is that schools could offer to act as a sort of hub for families to meet/organize socialization, and offer the ability to sign up for classes more a la carte. e.g. maybe they can take art or music or science lab, or organize sports teams, and kids that need it can take take math, etc. Basically, act as a support system for homeschooling to fill missing gaps (going up to handling the entire curriculum or effectively acting as childcare for families that need/want that).
One could look deeply into the Sudbury School or other similar approaches, especially for students with an existing internal drive to learn, as your daughter has demonstrated. The socialization aspects, particularly in participation in building group consensus in early developmental periods has far reaching effects.
If you believe that the core learning; reading, writing, and math competencies are being achieved at home, then a 'scheduled, unstructured time with peers and friends' may also be possible at this age through 'Head Start' program if available in your area.
The outcomes of Head Start's programs have been longitudinally validated from pre-kinder to the measurable outcomes through university graduation for a significant number of students across underprivileged and socioeconomically advantaged cohorts, with the process and results of these as a matter of public record by external researchers with independent review. Serious consideration may weight these types of studies more than "our students perform well" statements by other school projects.
That is not to say that other programs don't have merit, and in fact to the extent that the applied practices of any school overlaps with those studies, the results should be analogous.
I only bring this up, as at least for early grades, the 'hub for families' sounded like something that either the Sudbury or Head Start could deliver.
Disclaimers:
I have a family member who participated in every stage at Head Start; from in-classroom teacher, to multiple graduate degrees in developmental psychology and social work in order to design curricula, and as a regional manager for both HeadStart and a private community family social support caseworker. So I have some big picture concepts of what the program is and what it can provide.
I also have a close friends who have a daughter who was homeschooled through 3rd grade. Both parents have degrees in education and have been primary school teachers, one with a focus on linguistics and social studies, the other in math and life sciences. It really was Home+School. She then attended a traditional curriculum charter school, and then in middle school attended a Susbury school. The 'transition period' for her unfortunately was interrupted during COVID's early days. After the return to in-class attendance at the Sudbury School she staew there for a year and felt that she would perform better in a traditional classroom. Her parent's have been very complimentary of Sudbury approach, and they all feel that if she had been in that school from an earlier point in her education it could have worked for her.
It is clear that you are thinking deeply about this, and I wish you all the best of luck.
> If you could time-travel back to your 5y old self, would you prefer to be taught by AI tutor given the current state o/t art,
I don't know about Ello or whether is it better than human tutors yet.
> How do you see peer-to-peer contact in that scenario?
Neighbor kids gather and play as they please, which is also easier if they have more time on their hands, stay home, and overall live in each other's proximity.
> If you could time-travel back to your 5y old self, would you prefer to be taught by AI tutor given the current state o/t art, or taught by whatever teachers you did have when you were 5? (with all the existing hallucination, breaking through guardrails etc problems of current AI in mind)
I had to choose between my elementary school teachers and something like Claude Fable 5 with a good teaching-focused harness, I would definitely choose Fable 5.
