I see your point, but calculators(good ones, at least) are accurate 100% of the time. AI can hallucinate, and in a medical settings it is crucial that it doesn’t. I use AI for some insignificant tasks but I would not want it to replace my doctor’s learning.
Also, calculators are used to help kids work faster, not to do their work for them. Classroom calculators(the ones my schools had, at least) didn’t solve algebraic equations, they just added, subtracted, multiplied, divided, exponentiated, rooted, etc. Those are all things that can be done manually but are rudimentary and slow.
I get your point but AI and calculators are not quite the same.
You’re going for a much stricter comparison than your parent comment. They were just saying that calculators are a standard tool that did not in fact destroy the fundamentals of learning as some people felt compelled to believe. If you give a calculator to a child learning their times tables, it can in fact do their work for them, but we managed to integrate calculators into learning at higher levels. Whether calculators can be wrong isn’t really relevant.
Fair enough - it’s not the most concrete of comparisons and those are good points, but I do feel there is an amplification of ludditism around AI just because it’s new.
I see your point, but calculators(good ones, at least) are accurate 100% of the time. AI can hallucinate, and in a medical settings it is crucial that it doesn’t. I use AI for some insignificant tasks but I would not want it to replace my doctor’s learning.
Also, calculators are used to help kids work faster, not to do their work for them. Classroom calculators(the ones my schools had, at least) didn’t solve algebraic equations, they just added, subtracted, multiplied, divided, exponentiated, rooted, etc. Those are all things that can be done manually but are rudimentary and slow.
I get your point but AI and calculators are not quite the same.
You’re going for a much stricter comparison than your parent comment. They were just saying that calculators are a standard tool that did not in fact destroy the fundamentals of learning as some people felt compelled to believe. If you give a calculator to a child learning their times tables, it can in fact do their work for them, but we managed to integrate calculators into learning at higher levels. Whether calculators can be wrong isn’t really relevant.
Fair enough - it’s not the most concrete of comparisons and those are good points, but I do feel there is an amplification of ludditism around AI just because it’s new.