Oddly, the study didn’t measure (or the article didn’t report) average scores. It only states that a certain, large percentage of students are failing at low levels of reading and math.
The difference matters, because it might simply imply that a class of people are entering universities that traditionally would not have been accepted. Think the stereotype of the scholarship jock in the USA.
The article implies that the role of AI tools in this is equalizing. Instead of making people dumb, it gives them a chance to seem smart. It doesn’t lift people up either, and without AI they are still incapable of tasks that a college student should be able to complete.
That’s the nirvana for AI companies: a whole class of people that can’t live without their tools and is going to be willing to pay no matter what to keep accessing them.
Oddly, the study didn’t measure (or the article didn’t report) average scores. It only states that a certain, large percentage of students are failing at low levels of reading and math.
The difference matters, because it might simply imply that a class of people are entering universities that traditionally would not have been accepted. Think the stereotype of the scholarship jock in the USA.
The article implies that the role of AI tools in this is equalizing. Instead of making people dumb, it gives them a chance to seem smart. It doesn’t lift people up either, and without AI they are still incapable of tasks that a college student should be able to complete.
That’s the nirvana for AI companies: a whole class of people that can’t live without their tools and is going to be willing to pay no matter what to keep accessing them.