logoalt Hacker News

skulkyesterday at 2:35 PM6 repliesview on HN

> computers do not help human education in the slightest

I had no access to anyone who could teach me calculus as a kid except Khan Academy, so I think this is a gross exaggeration. But I agree in the end, that all my "real" learning did come from pen-and-paper practice, not watching videos.


Replies

whichdanyesterday at 5:13 PM

Yeah I agree. I grew up in a very blue-collar town, and anything I wanted to learn (outside of public schooling) either came from emaciated websites or whatever books I could find at the library. Having YouTube and Khan Academy and everything else would have made such a huge difference for me.

show 1 reply
voxlyesterday at 7:55 PM

The reality is that a human will learn, given any materials including LLMs, but only if they truly desire to learn. We've had MOOCs, gigantic libraries, all full of free information. You can obtain a PhD level understanding in any technical field of your choice today just by consistently going to the library and consistently applying yourself.

It's not unlike going to the gym, and we see how many people do that regularly. Except it's even funnier, because people serious about the gym but what? Tutors. They call them personal trainers. We've known for a millennium or more that 1-on-1 instruction is vastly better than anything else, but most people actually don't want to get into shape, and most people actually don't want to learn.

show 1 reply
mrandishyesterday at 8:18 PM

> except Khan Academy

But that's not using "computers" as a computer but as a video player. When evaluating whether computers are "good for learning", I don't think we should include using a computer as a video player, a book, or even flash cards. It should be things a computers uniquely offer which a books, paper, videos and a physical reference library cannot.

Based on the results of deploying hundreds of millions of computer to schools in the 80s and 90s, the evidence was mostly that computers are good for learning computer programming and "how to use a computer" but not notably better than cheaper analog alternatives for learning other things.

Interestingly, a properly trained and scaffolded LLM could be the first thing to meaningfully change that. It could do some things in ways only human teachers could previously since it is theoretically capable of observing learner progress and adapting to it in real-time.

whatever1yesterday at 9:59 PM

Khan did not throw at you a 100-slide Powerpoint deck in 45'.

He really took the time to replicate the manual teaching process of writing on whiteboard. He improved upon it by using colors. But basically had the same pace as a teacher writing on a whiteboard.

When professors are given a projector, they just throw together some slides and add their narration.

This is not very efficient. To learn you need to suffer. Or you need to watch the suffering.

allan_syesterday at 9:24 PM

I think what the author meant is that it does help not more than the same knowledge provided the old way.

rossjudsonyesterday at 4:57 PM

Every child reads a book about solving problems, assumes they can now solve problems, and is disappointed when that is not true.