[12 min read]

AI, AI, AI…
IT’S ALL THE RAGE

AI: It’s fascinating, right? You can plug in a question or challenge it to a debate, and it spits out an answer (and a very good one, at that).  It scares some of us, makes some of us mad, and fascinates others.  It’s like Google on steroids.  There is this idea that parents or teachers can use AI for school.  But… should we?  Should this be shaping what our kids learn? 

We spent a lot of time looking into this, so we could give parents our feedback from firsthand experience. We put AI through the ringer for a couple days and paid extra to upgrade to test the best they had to offer, so we could specifically share the results with you.  We challenged it to a debate about its use in education (debate below in link) and though it “argued” its point at first–decently, might I add–its final words were in concession, and you’ll have to just read it to see how it all went down.

We’re not anti-technology.  We do use AI in limited ways (for things like some graphics or website credit summary).  But when it comes to the material teaching our children and shaping how students think and reason, we draw a hard line, and we feel quite passionately about it.

What’s the big deal, you may ask?  Keep reading, and we’ll make our first case (yes, this is an entire series because there is more than one danger).

Let’s start small…

—POINT #1: OUR CHAT WITH AI—

Chat GPT (or any other AI model) is “trained” on multiple sources, including Wikipedia, online articles, blogs, books, and primary/secondary/tertiary sources.  Imagine opening an alligator’s mouth and shoving in the first ten links that pop up on a Google or library search, then the alligator chews them up and spits them back out.  That’s an incredibly overly-simplified explanation that’s not entirely precise, but good enough to keep things going for now.

You’ll notice our former podcasts and blogs already show that we are thoroughly against educational material utilizing flawed sources. If you start with a flawed foundation, you are bound to get flawed results. We’ve had many blogs and podcasts about this before.

But now, the world has gone bigger.  We’re beyond the day and age of only “Google” and “Wikipedia.”  We thought you’d want to see first-hand how AI looks for educators. Read our discussions with Chat GPT 4 below:

And let’s just be honest: it doesn’t even matter if you believe Walt Disney was frozen or cremated.  We just had fun challenging AI, and we take no authoritative stance on the matter.  What matters is that AI gave two contradictory facts. What if we stopped short and didn’t challenge it?  Then what should we believe?  

Try this one:

Here’s a fun one that I tossed in (feel free to skip it if you’ve had enough examples and scroll below).  We were in the middle of writing a 50 States unit and wanted to see if it could get basic data correct when logic didn’t follow the norm:

SPLIT INTO TWO SCREENSHOTS BECAUSE IT WAS LONG.  IT CONTINUES…

To summarize: it’s full of contradictions because it couldn’t compute when logic broke “nature’s norms.”

If an unknowing person doesn’t know to challenge the information being provided, then they only become the believer of flawed information and perpetuate it. This is so dangerous.

In one test, we had a conversation where we asked AI questions for ~5 minutes about a science topic.  AI created theories based on its initial flawed theory, and it continued building upon it as if it was all true.  I wish I’d thought to save the screenshot at the time, but it was early on, and I didn’t think about what a great example it would end up being. 

How frightening would it be if a child or parent was using it and didn’t know to challenge the information? 

Now, did AI always get it wrong in our tests? No. We ran a series of tests and asked numerous questions. Sometimes it got it right. Some, it got wrong. Whether right or wrong, AI responses have the same authoritative tone, leading users to accept its statements as fact—especially because it sounds so “fluent.”

So, the question is: how can you know what it’s teaching you or your child is accurate?  The answer is simple.  You can’t.

At least on internet searches via Google, you can determine when something links to an opinion piece or a blog.  You can choose to take it with a grain of salt. With AI, however, the same is not true.  It sounds so sure of itself.  

We only knew to challenge what AI was saying in the above conversations because we already put in the footwork and spent hours studying these concepts (things like South Carolina, Fall Lines, Roanoke, etc.) previously, while in each unit’s previous curriculum development.

If we, as parents, wanted flawed Google to teach our children then why would we purchase any curriculum at all? Just let the kids peruse the internet all day long, instead.  Likewise, why would we purchase a curriculum that merely copied/pasted Google information? We know some companies may do this, but we are certainly not advocates.  The same question, therefore, should be given for AI-generated material. It’s even more dangerous.

HUMAN FLAWS

To be fair, humans can and do also make mistakes when writing curriculum. Parents and teachers will make mistakes.  Experts will even make mistakes in their own careers. It happens. No one is perfect.  It’s going to happen.

There is a difference, however, between a mistake and a flawed foundation.

Do you want the contractor who–in the process of doing things right–accidentally made your tile grout a little too dark or put a little hole in the wall (mistake, it happens)? Or, do you want the contractor who says it’s fine to build the house on sand without a foundation? 

POINT #2: IMPACT ON HOMESCHOOL LAWS

We had someone else show this AI mistake.  The user initially asked AI to do the following: Create a course description for ____________ [curriculum] based off the _______ [unit name] from _______________ [company].  The user needed this to give to their state officials.  This was the response from AI:

The problem? This is NOT the proper course description or objectives of the curriculum in the user’s question. Rather, AI failed to understand the user’s intentions, and the user failed to understand AI’s output.

The curriculum in question doesn’t actually go into 90% of what is discussed above, as it took a totally different path. The user did not initially take the time to check because they were admittedly so “wowed” by the output of AI and fooled by the response that sounded so sure.

This can make homeschoolers seem like they are turning in “course descriptions” and “objectives,” randomly lying about what their child is learning… with a complete lack of corroboration, and nothing that legitimately matches what was in the curriculum. 

It’s not looking good. Such a thing would not reflect well on homeschoolers overall.

So, how SHOULD you use AI, or should you use it at all?  We’re going to break here and be back for PART 2 soon!  This is far too deep an issue to discuss all in one sitting.  This is undoubtedly going to be multiple parts because it is one of THE most important concepts in the world of education right now.  Stay tuned, and sign up for our newsletter!!!

WHAT ABOUT AI IN GRAPHICS?  CHECK IT OUT HERE!