That exactly.
Additionally there are two more things not understood, even completely missed:
1. There is no understanding without knowledge.
When I came to university to study engineering I learned there are two kinds of subjects:
rote learning and understanding
While the first one is boring and the second one is more interesting, the second one is harder, way harder, at least for the vast majority, even if almost everybody claims to be an understanding type.
Anyway understanding cannot come without learning. Alas sometimes even blunt rote learning is unavoidable.
You first have to learn about chlorophyll, oxygen, carbondioxid, and sunlight before you can understand photosynthesis. And you have to learn a lot more things to rate the role of photosynthesis for life.
Engineering is mostly about understanding. We were teached, it makes no sense to rote learn endless tables containing zillions of values: gigantic material value tables, constants, standards, formulas, screws, nuts,... etc. etc. etc. For that there are references you can look those things up when needed: tables, books, encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, chatbots.
But like you cannot learn everything you simply cannot look up
everything. You have to learn, even sometimes bluntly rote learn some core things. And you have to learn what to learn, and what you can leave to look it up when needed. That is the most challenging part. Because you already have to have learned a lot to decide what you can leave to reference, and what not, what you have to learn. So you learn it and leave it not to reference. Or in other words: An
expert does know, what needs to be learned and what can be left to references. But a newbie, a pupil, a student cannot. Simply because of she/he is no expert yet, so lacking expertise to know that. Having even the best referene doesn't make anybody an expert. No learning, no expertise. No expertise, no expert.
Back in U there have been tests we called "Kofferklausur", 'suitcase exam'. Because you were allowed to bring a suitcase full of all the stuff you wanted to bring, anything you like into the test: As many books as you like, lecture notes, cheat sheets, whatever you want, no restrictions (Back then there have been no laptops nor mobile phones.) Those were the hardest tests.
Some really brought half a library. Those were the ones who failed these tests. The ones who passed were those who brought only what was actually needed to do the test: pens, ruler, calculator, and the knowledge in their brains.
Those were pure understanding tests. If you did not already learn and understand how to solve an assigment, you simply couldn't do it during the test, no matter how many books or written paper you brought. Because for anything not trivial you already learned how to do it, there simply is no time to learn it while you're doing it. You already have learned it in advance, or you cannot do it.
Example: When you never learned how to play an instrument you simply cannot just take place infront of a church's organ, take some reference to hand - cheat sheet, book, ChatGPT - and directly play Bach perfectly.
You can make a computer do it for you, but then it's not you who's playing. Which brings me to the second point:
2. There is no use for anybody who can do nothing.
If you ask an AI chatbot to do things it's the chatbot who knows how to and does it, not you. And you better don't confuse that.
Apart from other points everybody else is also capable to use a chatbot. So it's just a "competence" like using a toilet. Uh, poor example. Public toilets reveal, more people are capable to use a chatbot than a toilet.
Using a chatbot ain't no real competence at all.
Chatbots rely on the expertise many people have to have produced first by their work. Often not being asked, let alone being payed for. There are words for when you take something unasked that is not yours and not pay for it: stealing and theft. Of course that's a big business opportunity when you sell something you do not pay for. If a majority joins the show doesn't change its nature. In german we have an own word for dealing with stolen goods: Hehlerei. However, anyway it's not your competence. Some may throw in, 'so is the content of books.' Well, yeah, but when you learned what's in a book, it becomes your knowledge, while what a chatbot presents you forget almost instantly. You don't learn it, because you don't have to. So, it's neither your competence nor your knowledge.
And chatbots are not reliable. One needs to have knowledge if not expertise to use them right, to pick the useful parts from all the junk chatbots produce. If you don't have learned anything, because you rely and trust the chatbots, only, you simply cannot rate and distinguish things, above all not perceive the wrong crap they produce, so adjust your question to get the right answers you seek - if you seek any. That's another point: The loss of interest. Those chatbots are more and more used to fulfill tasks given by others, only, while more and more do not care anymore why the world is and works the way it is. They don't have to. The chatbot knows it for them.
If all you do is just hand a job over to a machine to do it, and then simply hand the result back without even took a peek at it, let alone tested its correctness, rated its value, not speaking of filtering, correcting, improving, which all needs expertise and own work to be done, which is not only everybody else also capable to do, but also doable by a machine, then you are useless.
There is way more useful things to do then to participate the production chains for consumer products. But somebody not doing something useful may be tolerated, if the society - mommy, daddy, spouses, friends, welfare, state,... - are strong enough
and willing to carry this person, but anybody not doing anything useful at all is simply a burden.
That our today's society increases the bar for who is a burden for no reason but egoism and greed while at the same time it was never that rich, never had so much capability to easily "carry burdens", is an unnatural, mad situation enabled by short-terminism I don't want to stress here.
But partially it's also the educational system's fault.
Schools take out the fun of learning, and leave kids not enough time for learning themselves what they want.
In my eyes that's the worst part at all.
This ancient education system we still cling on is obsolete for over sixty years. Already a long time ago there have been ideas how to improve education. And also pedagogues will not only tell you many way better concepts how to improve education, but also tell so many things are simply just wrong in our schools. See for example
Montessori education for IMO some way better ideas.
Until sixty years ago there was enough space left to do things besides the teaching program. The generation of my parents still learned, 'Not for school, but for life we learn.' In the last decades that's turned into nonsense. Today you have to learn for school. Otherwise you don't get the grades, so no useful graduation to get to U or a decent payed job. Today's pupils don't ask anymore if something makes sense to learn, what's the use of something. They don't ask anything. There is neither the time, nor the space for questions, particulary not to seek interests. They just have to function perfectly or they fail. There is no space left for experiments, to learn things on their own. Asking questions outbrakes the class. And anything besides the show not earning you any points for needed grades is wasted time and energy you cannot afford.
Even very young pupils have to be most efficient. Just check what grades in which subjects are needed, what counts more, what does not, and then what's the most efficient way to get there. Either do the bare minimum. Not because of laziness but because of not having more power except giving the subjects that count, only, just the bare minimum. Or find other ways to get there anyhow. Fu## the rest!
Ain't it what we have on $JOB? There is more work than can be done. And we must deliver just some thing in time. Rest doesn't matter. Now we also have this in school. Children getting burn out. If this ain't great, I don't what is. And it still ain't enough. We still need to grow even more, even faster, even greater.
Why? Where to? For whom?
Twelve year olds have time planners, making appointments for play dates. That's sick! That's wrong! That's against nature! That's inhuman! Twelve year olds should sit in school in the morning learning Pythagoras and photosynthesis, do one hour homework in the afternoon, and then play with their friends until they fall asleep in the evening: running, screeming through nature, play football or pirates or what they see on TV, carving bow and arrows, having bicycle chases, building tree houses, go fishing, or whatever else, wild, free and unrestrained, but not being organized little managers chauffeured in some overprotected luxury SUV from one appointment to the next looking at the clock and staring at some computer screen.
The most absurd thing is, there even is no time anymore to do all what the school demands. Everybody agrees on our world became more complex within the last decades, and so there have to be way more to learn than back in the 1960s. But instead of taking this in account and extend school time, we
reduced school from 13 to 12 years, and university from 12 semesters down to 8. While the stuff to be teached ain't not reduced, not even stayed the same amount but even
more stuff must be teached - in shorter time! That's mad!
Must be the result of poor education.
The teaching program obliges to do so many things today there is no time for getting anything explained right for the majority. Example:
Imagine it takes 2 x 45 = 90 minutes to make ~90% grasp Pythagoras. There are always slow ones and lazybones not getting it after ten hours, but those are not the majority. Now there is so much more stuff to teach within a year a teacher today got twenty minutes to explain Pythagoras (made up times; just to get a picture how the situation looks like.) You don't need to be a pedagogue to see this cannot work. Only 10% or maybe 20% will grasp it within this too short time, while everybody must bring the knowledge in the test.
The result is: Politicians and schools proudly point out all the lot many fancy things teached in school, while everybody else wonders, why kids today knew so few, lack most fundamental things, even bring no interest in anything at all, avoid learning at all cost. Point is, it may be "teached", but it is not learned, because it cannot. It's just checked off.
That's at least paradox if not schizophrenia! Just because industry was whining, they were all too old and must be younger when join the workforce. Now we have that. Now industry is whining there are not enough competent people coming from schools anymore, and they are immature. Well, Duh! Where shall they come from? Of course they are immature for their age. There is not enough time besides school to live and mature. (Which proves, not to blindely believe and always follow what industry demands. They don't know what's really good, neither for the society, nor themselves.
)
Plus many schools are not capable to keep up with their own standards, because at the same time politicians also drew out money from education. In many countries the public school system is pointless. If you cannot afford to have your kids on a private school, it's an almost useless waste of time to have them on a public school, because the diploma they get there is worth to decorate a public toilet with. And I'm not talking so called third world countries but the self declared best ones.
Back in my school days a tutor was for when you have been lazy, missed some stuff, and needed extra lessons to catch up. Today it's common for pupils to have private tutors. Private tutor schools are a booming business pretty much unknown back in my school days. They are needed to teach kids besides school what school does not teach but demands. Those who can afford private tutors get a diploma. Those who don't fail. And over all the headline is "support the best". That's BS. That's a lie. That's not supporting the best, that's supporting the rich. And we have already seen mayn times where this ends, when nobles = rich are getting in the best positions just because they are rich/noble while the real gifted ones are suppressed if they don't belong to the upper class.
One of the causes of the french army's superiority under Napoleon against all the noble's armies back then was promotion was done by competence, not by heritage. A simple peasant's private could become general. While in other armies officers were chosen only from nobles, not matter how incompetent they were, and sergeants' job was to herd soldiers like cattle, otherwise they deserted and flew. So back then the french army had by far the best motivated soldiers, so have been most efficient, have beaten several armies similar equipped and larger in numbers (I'm talking about the time before 1812.)
And you simply cannot blame the kids for it.
Kids just swim the best they can in the pool you throw them in. If they don't behave the way you want them to change the situation, but don't blame the kids. It's like laboratory mice you put into some labyrinth. If the mouse simply climbs over the wall to get to the cheese, it is you and your labyrinth to blame, not the mouse.
We need to ban AI chatbots from tests/exams - otherwise those make no sense at all. Or we need to get rid off tests, exams and grades and find other ways to guarantee somebody graduated brings the according knowledge. Because I don't want to be operated by somebody who claims to be a physician and says, 'I never removed an appendix before, but ChatGPT will tell me what to do. Nurse, what's this "blood pressure" means on this monitor over there?'
But for that you have to create an environment where kids can and want learn in a reasonable way.
One cannot only demand, one also have to give.
Maybe there will come something good from all of that, and we get a reformation that finally upgrades our education system, instead of dimantling it even more.
www.bbc.com
