In response to Daniel Susskind's article on how parents can embrace artificial intelligence, readers argue that children need human interaction, not AI-driven tools. Pil and Galia Kollectiv from London highlight Susskind's statement that "human tutors are too expensive to provide to everyone," questioning the cost comparison and suggesting that providing tutors for all would address job loss anxieties and offer quality education to every child, not just the wealthy.
AI's limits and societal impact
The Kollectivs contend that students protesting against AI are concerned not only about graduate outcomes but also understand that its imposition enriches the few and worsens labour conditions for many. They dismiss education technology as "scammers" and argue that children do not need more datacentres or environmentally catastrophic automation. They also criticise AI's ability to mimic cultural outputs, stating that new ideas require turning away from the "narcissistic seductions" of chatbots' customisation. They note that while social media at least used to provide connection, "AI fundamentally does not."
A call for critical thinking
Jane Roland Martin, professor of philosophy emerita at the University of Massachusetts, praises Susskind's view that we must prepare children for the world they will inhabit. However, she questions whether yesterday's basics will remain basic, pointing to her own experiences with digital estate planning and dictation. She agrees that AI must be used critically, but stresses the need to think critically about a school curriculum designed for the 19th and 20th centuries.
