Does AI help us learn?

That's good. It does, though, get back to this basic point that we need our public education system to teach people to think critically. When half of our kids aren't on grade level for reading or math proficiency, it's going to be very hard for them to be lifelong learners.

I mean, curiosity and asking questions and learning how to think, not teaching them knowledge, is a massive problem that we're dealing with in education in the United States, in my opinion, on its own. Kids are not being taught how to question, how to build. They're being taught facts. Those facts are irrelevant because they all exist in AI now. You don't need to know all those facts. It's good to have basis, but what are you really trying to get? A curious mind, an engineering mind, a creative mind, a thoughtful mind, and teach individuals agency in a world where they have infinite capacity. That's what AI gives all of us.

Most parents do not want their kids to do this work and have their brains atrophy and not learn how to do it from a basic level. Putting aside the drug and millic conversation from last week, you want people to be able to learn how to read and write and do this stuff organically, acoustically, whatever term you want to do, and then learn how to use the AI to help them, augment them, et cetera.

I think most parents would have a similar experience. I think if you stripped out the knowledge, the part that you could easily access with AI, she would still astonish me in how much she has developed. That's a residential university and all the interactions, and all the things, and the challenges, and the overcoming them. People were predicting with massive open online courses, the death of universities 15 years ago. I really think that when you start realizing, that's what makes it so darn transformative. At least any AI I've seen so far is not getting close to what we're able to do.

I think it's inconceivable to me that kids will not have an adaptive learning platform as their primary way of learning. I think this idea of grade one, then grade two, then grade three is, as Freiburg said, a lowest common denominator approach to education. I don't think it works. I think it's more conceivable that in the future we have kids that have very different learning styles, some are more visual, some are more auditory, and we have different learning paces. And if you could have something that's much more tailored to each individual person's learning style, where you have guides that help you in moments, and then the rest of the time,

you're teaching executive function and teamwork and problem solving, all of these other things, sports, that's a much better outcome for all kids.

There's some numbers. I think 700 to 800 million adults are illiterate. Two thirds of them are women. And on top of that, there's about 500 million kids who are not in school. If you add all of that up, that's like 1.2 billion people who are not educated.

Yeah. And these are all in really poor areas. There's just no schools around, or they just couldn't afford to go to school. And the schools are not very good today either. The schools average you out. You have a classroom.

So it's just an app on a phone or a tablet. It's just an app. I believe that we have enough technology with gaming, understanding of human psychology, with AI. A single app can deliver all the education content you need. And we can do that for free.

Now, why is that bad? Why is it bad to take time? Well, it's bad to take time when you have an opportunity to progress forward quickly and aggressively because there are going to be alternatives out there. They're going to be private schools that are going to use AI. And I don't want to see kids of privilege and kids of wealth accelerate ahead because they're getting an AI education while public school kids. get left behind.