Right, and part of that is nurturing student interest and buy-in, because it can increase. Traditionally smart teaching and the right structure could result in some percentage of reluctant learners being drawn into good habits and better retention. I think the subtle part of the AI in education crisis is how it basically has smothered that "nurturing" in the cradle, right from the get-go, so it's a bit of a cold-start situation in many classes.
Flipped classrooms are like, the quintessential siren song for teachers. EVERY teacher dreams of a day when they can focus on what they're best at (teaching deep topics, getting 'aha' moments, making connections, asking questions, and so on) and do less of what they dislike. But sadly this is just not how things work.
Flipped classrooms have incredibly weak causal evidence. However they are popular in spite of this - perhaps because of this if you're cynical - as the educational research field is pretty questionable in its standards and the profit motive is a strong thing lurking in the background. Wikipedia has a big warning on the article for a reason, but even then it has serious issues.
"Active learning" is a thing (insofar as it has meaning rather than be a useless buzzword catch-all) that does work. But the "flip" specifically does not, or rather, sometimes a mix of extra effort on behalf of the teacher and other loosely related effects occasionally can make a modest impact that makes up for its failings.
Most of the people pushing flipped classrooms are the same people who think that students learn best when they "discover" concepts on their own, maybe with a bit of guidance. This is the other, more serious, lie in education right now, akin to the whole idea that you didn't need to teach phonics to kids when they learn to read.
In theory Jev “calibrates” the probabilities, meaning a probability of 20% is optimized to happen near 20% of the time, which as you point out traditional models with schemas do NOT optimize for at all
Personally I think every single medium to long form piece of writing should go through an LLM grammar check at the minimum (they are great at catching stuff like correcting “reign in” to “rein in”, not to mention their/they’re and so on) although I don’t think they generally have the self control to make the corrections themselves without screwing stuff up.
I can see being lazy and skipping it, but refusing to use them even for more minimal advice purposes seems crazy to me.
If luck = something you didn’t choose or had no control over, sure.
If luck = it could have gone otherwise, that’s nonsensical; if you had different parents you wouldn’t exist to begin with, as you are literally a specific fusion of your biological parents. Similarly, if we take luck to mean something probabilistic, or something coincidental? Also meaningless in this case.
If luck = how your situation compares to others, I would argue “fortunate” is the better word here.
And of course there’s a parallel spiritual debate if you believe that identity to be separate (were you “assigned” to parents, was it deliberate or random, etc)
I’ve seen about 8 therapists and 3 coaches at various times in the last 15 years. 5-6/8 and 2/3 respectively were, I eventually realized, mostly in it for the money and didn’t actually care too much (if at all) about me making any positive changes permanent. It wasn’t all bad; having someone confidential to talk to is in itself valuable, but the cost/benefit ratio is not at all consistent.
With that kind of benchmark comparison, it’s not all that hard for AI to present some kind of favorable value proposition, even if also inconsistent but with a harder ceiling on the upside.
Yeah, because sleeping directly on the ground leaches heat from your body too fast, because of said lack of insulation. Sleeping too directly on the ground is also particularly dangerous in survival scenarios, doubly so if you are cold or wet. A common mistake when assembling a temporary shelter is to spend all your time on the “roof” but very little on the “floor”.
reply