AI is like hyperprocessed foods for learning

Related is Claude for Education: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.anthropic.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;introducing-claude-for-education" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.anthropic.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;introducing-claude-for-educat...</a><p>It&#x27;s adjusted to not just give answers, but (perhaps frustratingly for the student), force them to iterate through something to get an answer.<p>Like anything it&#x27;s likely also jail-breakable, but as we&#x27;ve learned with all software, the defaults matter.

The issue would be with students who just want a certain grade. That&#x27;s where the dopamine hit is. Maybe AI can write you a paper at home, but it can&#x27;t fill out a blue book in a classroom. Maybe there needs to an adjustment around types of assignments or how to grade them, but the in-class exams have always held more weight anyway.<p>Just like we see posts here about how AI (at the very least AI on its own) is ineffective at coding a product, these students eventually learn what the Wharton study had proven, that AI is not effective at getting them the grade they want.<p>I know I&#x27;m lazy. I try shortcuts like AI, copying Wikipedia before that, hoping just punching number into a ti-86 would solve my problems for me. They simply don&#x27;t.

Is overuse of generative AI by students acting like hyperprocessed foods for learning?<p>Quick dopamine hits. Immediate satisfaction. Long-term learning deficits.<p>How to break this cycle? I wrote this article to try to answer this question.

I feel like the article is not disciplined about maintaining definitions between Education and learning here, but there&#x27;s some interesting stuff. I&#x27;ve found (I think!) LLMs to be hyper-useful for enquiry-based learning: lots of &quot;well does that mean that&quot; and &quot;isn&#x27;t that the same as&quot; and &quot;but you said earlier that&quot; and &quot;could you use shorter answers and we&#x27;ll do this step by step please&quot;.<p>I am curious to dig into &quot;Generative AI Can Harm Learning&quot;[0], referenced in the article. I think the summary in the article skips over some of the subtleties in the abstract though.<p>0: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.ssrn.com&#x2F;sol3&#x2F;papers.cfm?abstract_id=4895486" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;papers.ssrn.com&#x2F;sol3&#x2F;papers.cfm?abstract_id=4895486</a>

If AI is controllable, what students learn is controllable when it replaces &quot;inefficient&quot; humans.<p>I also agree with the title and its implications.<p>But hype is hype, and humans like to ride the hype.

The article seems a little padded out, but I think the central metaphor is a good one.

Reading this, it felt like taking a bite of something sweet and simple, but then I suddenly realized that it might not be what my brain really needs. I don’t think AI is the problem. It’s just a tool, a powerful tool. Like ultra processed food, it’s not meant to replace the way we think, it’s just to help us think. Used properly, it can improve your learning ability and make your brain smarter. Used too much, it can make you forget how to think completely. Maybe balance is not just about nutrition, but also about thinking.