In classrooms and Chinese Rooms
Chinese room
The Chinese room argument holds that a computer executing a program cannot have a mind, understanding, or consciousness, regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave. The argument was presented in a 1980 paper by the American philosopher John Searle, entitled "Minds, Brains, and Programs" and published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences.[1] Similar arguments had been made previously by others, including Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Peter Winch, and Anatoly Dneprov. Searle's version has been widely discussed in the years since.[2] The centerpiece of Searle's argument is a thought experiment known as the "Chinese room".[3]
What Parents Need to Know About AI in the Classroom | Stanford HAI
From immersive learning and personalized tutors to lesson plans and grading, AI is everywhere in K-12 education.
Children of the Magenta Line
Why minimally guided AI does not work. Chatbots, novices, the automation of learning and the case for Alpha School
Notes from inside China's AI labs
Lessons from my trip to talk to most of the leading AI labs in China.
The 50 Percent Problem
Empirical evidence of the educational harm of generative AI
The 50 Percent Problem
Empirical evidence of the educational harm of generative AI
Does AI stop children from learning?
New data show the peril and promise of the technology
Human Intelligence, the Secret of Artificial Intelligence
Artificial intelligence is mysterious: we speak to it and it seems to understand what we say. Proof that it understands is that it responds with text or speech that makes sense, and sometimes more …
Home
Taiwan’s cyber-ambassador Audrey Tang on why the real danger of AI isn’t that machines imitate humans, but that humans adapt to machines.
AI learns language from skewed sources. That could change how we humans speak – and think | Bruce Schneier
Large language models aren’t trained on real-life conversations. As we encounter their language, it could affect our own
AI That Evolves in the Wild | Edge.org
I’m interested not in domesticated AI—the stuff that people are trying to sell. I'm interested in wild AI—AI that evolves in the wild. I’m a naturalist, so that’s the interesting thing to me. Thirty-four years ago there was a meeting just like this in which Stanislaw Ulam said to everybody in the room—they’re all mathematicians—"What makes you so sure that mathematical logic corresponds to the way we think?" It’s a higher-level symptom. It’s not how the brain works. All those guys knew fully well that the brain was not fundamentally logical.
On AI as model organism for human learning
I've a pretty taste for paradox
Livetweet @mcxfrank.bsky.social talk: If we care about intelligence and cognition, AI has recently allowed a change; we now have two ways to study them. AI is of course allowing us a lot that we wouldn't dare on our Children (brain surgery, never tell a child about cats...) #acl #conll
