2026-09-08 21:32 UTC
Replies (9)
-
@FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2026-09-08 21:39
Thats cool as shit, I didn’t expect the results to be so obvious for a few more years.
-
@nonentity@sh.itjust.works 2026-09-08 22:18
‘AI’, as Artificial Intelligence, is yet to be demonstrated, and the opinion of anyone convinced it has needs to be summarily dismissed, and if they persist, ridiculed. LLMs are a chipper and solvent of competency and credibility, which is a problem when used by someone attempting to build and develop them.
-
@OwOarchist@pawb.social 2026-09-08 22:38
Now for the big question: Did AI make these students stupid, or is it just selection bias because the stupid students are more likely to use AI?
-
@agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 2026-09-09 03:30
I can imagine performing better when you use AI to help learn the material, but not when you use it to do the assignment. Using it to find primary sources, or help you get your bearings on a topic you’ve been struggling with, doesn’t seem that detrimental. It’s just a tool. If you use it responsibly, it can be helpful; if you use it irresponsibly, you can cause problems.
-
@self@awful.systems 2026-09-09 04:00
maybe this is the wrong thread to not read the article and just sit there and goon about how the thing with empirically bad outcomes is “just a tool”
-
@jaschop@awful.systems 2026-09-09 07:50
I expect we’re gonna hear more about the cherry-picked data points that aren’t atrocious for AI. Like specifically the “help me learn” usage stat (the only one where some AI users are.on par or better), and the even more specific “help me learn” usage with AI/media literacy discussed in class stat. There’s probably all kinds of interesting factors involved that had to ignored because we needed an AI fluff statistic. Like one fact they mention, that high AI-use and partly non-AI use correllate with curiousity. Kids who want information will use the tools given. If your teachers are into AI and discuss it in class, even more so. I expect the “once or twice a year”-users include a big bulk of kids that just do not care about education (often coming from unpriviliged households), so they use it to cheat on their assignments and call it a day. Pretty undeniable though, that the daily users are always worse than the sometimes users. That’s probably the habitual delegation of thought kicking in. I could accept that a subgroup of the AI users learns on par or sliiiightly better than non-users on average, but they might be building up a reliance on tooling that will serve them worse and worse once they get past well-trodden school problems. In the same vein they’re probably all getting fucked, because noone gives a fuck about good text books & reference materials anymore.
-
@rustydrd@sh.itjust.works 2026-09-09 08:21
To anyone who would like to read the primary source, the corresponding part of the OECD’s official report starts at p. 236. Disclaimer: I have not watched the video in the OP, so I can’t make any statement about whether or not the report really aligns with the video.
-
@Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works 2026-09-09 13:22
PISA data show that students who use AI for specific schoolwork tasks, such as summarising texts, drafting or conducting research, attain lower scores in science than students who do not use AI. In these scenarios, students who do not use AI outperform those who do, on average, by around 20 points – equivalent to being around one year of schooling ahead of their peers. However, weekly users of AI for general purposes have similar performance outcomes to non-users. Students who regularly use AI for general purposes, and have learning opportunities at school to develop AI literacy skills, tend to have slightly higher scores in science. However, these opportunities are more common among socio-economically advantaged students, risking a growing AI divide.
-
@lagrangeinterpolator@awful.systems 2026-09-09 14:25
Of course there are people trying to find a silver lining to this by conjuring up the hypothetical scenario where a student only uses the AI to aid in learning the material instead of just doing all the work. First, any convenience in learning the material just reduces your ability to learn it. The friction involved with learning may seem like an inconvenience to be smoothed away, but it turns out that the friction is how learning happens. It’s called engaging with the material. This has been the case with previous technologies: handwriting is better for retaining memory than typing (pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11943480/). (I guess there is some commentary about the sadly common worldview that life is about avoiding or eliminating inconveniences.) Second, there is a very thin line between “helping” you learn the material and just doing the work. The temptation to cut corners is always there, and when you have the Corner Cutting Machine at your disposal, you are kidding yourself if you think you will have perfect discipline. Tools influence behavior.