My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math
from the sometimes-it-can-be-a-useful-tool dept
I’ve spoken to enough teachers and professors to know that LLM tools are absolutely a challenge for many of them in the classroom. Many struggle with making sure they’re actually teaching students how to learn, worrying that the tools are doing the work for them, and skipping over the actual learning. Many are (understandably) resorting to outright bans on students using the tools (which they often know they can’t enforce). Others say that students can use these tools but are fully responsible for any work they turn in, hoping that this will encourage students to be wary of relying too much on the tech. Still others are trying clever workarounds (I appreciate the assignment in which students are asked to have an LLM generate an essay and then the student has to review/grade the essay themselves, which is engaging and also teaches some of the limitations of the tools).
But I’ve also heard from both teachers/professors and students that there are concerns that as students go out into the job market, having some skills with these tools is often a requirement in whatever fields they pursue, leading them to wonder how to best teach the subject in a world where LLM tech isn’t likely to go away, and is seen as part of the toolbox that many employers will expect their employees to use.
I don’t necessarily have good answers to that, but I did recently have an experience in my own home that struck me as potentially relevant as an example of how the tech can actually be useful as a learning tool. I’ve been meaning to write about this for a few months now, but there always seemed to be something more urgent to cover. With the school year almost over, I figure I should get this out. For all the talk of how kids are cheating using AI, it might be worth showing at least one example where the tool is genuinely useful — in this case, one of my kids and their friends.
At the beginning of this year I had actually set up my kids with some (very sandboxed) agentic coding tools, after walking them through how I used such tools for a fairly simple project so they could see both how it worked, but also some of the limitations with the tools.
Soon after that, my 12-year-old had asked about my opinion on AI in schools. We talked through how using them to avoid doing the work is genuinely damaging to learning, but there are cases where they can be legitimately helpful. I used the calculator analogy: you first have to learn basic arithmetic by hand, but once you genuinely understand it, a calculator is a perfectly legitimate tool for tackling harder problems — it stops being a crutch and starts being a multiplier.
Apparently that analogy stuck, because what happened later was that analogy made real.
Once I had set my kids up with the tools, they did what most people do with them: created some fun games. A couple of months went by and they hadn’t used them much more. In early March, however, the 12-year-old came home and told me there was a math test that Friday and some classmates were doing an online study group. They worked through some problems together in a live voice chat, but afterward my kid stayed at the computer for a while longer before calling me over to take a look.
“I vibe coded a system to help study.”
I was… surprised. Even more interesting, the app had been packaged up (as an HTML file) and shared with the study group. My kid then explained that because AI can’t be trusted to always get things right, they’d gone through and checked the AI’s math themselves — making some (minor) corrections along the way — and that the process had given them a stronger grasp of the material than just passively studying would have.
I never got a full explanation on the “errors” that they found, though the sense I get is that it wasn’t anything major (outright incorrect math or explanations or anything) but more minor mistakes that they used the tools to fix directly within the app.
After acing the test that week, the next obvious thing to do over the weekend was plan out a study tool for the rest of the semester:
Among other things, this version of the app includes an onscreen pop-up calculator — but only for the topics where a calculator is allowed on exams. I have no idea if this was a more literal implementation of the calculator analogy we’d discussed earlier! It also (for fun) lets you adjust the color scheme.
And it has a changelog as updates were made to the app.
There are plenty of reasonable concerns about kids using AI to cheat, and those concerns aren’t wrong. It’s a real issue. But the framing of “AI as cheating tool” has crowded out a more interesting question: what does it actually look like when a kid uses these tools well?
The calculator analogy holds: the LLM tool generated a first draft — a study tool, a set of practice problems, a scaffolded explanation of the material. My kid then had to engage critically with that output: checking the math, finding the gaps, making corrections. That process of verification was part of the studying. The tool actually created the conditions for more active, more engaged learning than just reviewing problems in a book. And it certainly didn’t substitute in for the learning, like most people worry about with these tools in classroom settings. Quite the opposite.
That’s a meaningfully different frame than “AI does your homework.” The homework here was, in part, checking the tool’s work — and it turns out that’s not a bad way to learn math.
Filed Under: ai, ai in schools, cheating, llms, math
Comments on “My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math”
And then everybody clapped.
Re: Oooh, oooh, first post!
Give them a peanut!
Re:
This reminds me when I was 8y and able my repair bicycle tube (at this old Dark Age era without internet). It was pretty easy, just go to the shop, buy a pack of patches, remove the tire, put the patch with some glue on, and put the tire back. And it worked most of the time.
With practice, I was faster at fixing it, but never better at it because sometimes I had a flat tire ten minutes later (and felt many times because of it).
This kind of experience helped me a lot in life because I used to think that many problems have simple solutions (that don’t require much theory). It’s only two decades later that I’ve learnt how to properly repairing a tube (or a tire when using tubeless), and how relatively tedious it could be if you don’t want to fall at 30 mph because of it.
So yes, I was this “smart” kid that knew how to do it, but mostly I was this dumb kid that was doing it without knowing anything about it.
Vibe Coding for learning
All kudos to your 17-year-old, but wouldn’t links to Khan Academy have been a better option? It is designed for teaching and would be correct.
My other thought is that this is “exacerbating the digital divide”. A child with a dad who can supply a vibe-coding environment to play with, and sufficient technical expertise to help, is not exactly going to be par for the course for most parents, many of whom may not even be able to do basic maths, let alone have the expertise and resources that you provided.
If computer training for math works, why not have schools provide the code for all the kids, rather than have them code their own? Wouldn’t this be similar to ensuring all the children have access to computers and the tested software to help them study?
Re:
12-year old, not 17.
And, I’m a huge fan of Khan Academy (Sal Khan was my housemate around the time Techdirt was starting and it’s always fun to follow what he’s up to). For what it’s worth he’s also a big believer in using AI in education (though I think some of his predictions are misplaced):
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/196848520-brave-new-words
But the simple fact is there is no one “right way” to learn, and different ways work for different people. Watching Khan Academy videos and using their tools is one way. Building tools for yourself is another.
Congrats to your kid on managing to make AI useful.
My experience wound up being very different, unfortunately. I finally got to run an experiment with AI as a writing assistant. It took a month and 5 days just to process a single article I wrote. The result was that it managed to introduce far more grammar mistakes than it would’ve fixed. It mangled several sentences and seemingly made changes for the sake of changes as well. I came out of the other end of this never-ending huge amounts of busywork to find… two minor grammar mistakes. Would my article technically be improved with those to fixes? Sure. Was it worth it? Absolutely not. Using AI was awful and extremely tedious for me. I couldn’t ditch AI fast enough.
I’m very curious what you did/what tools you used that this was the outcome.
Yeah. At no point am I suggesting it’s right for every one or every situation. And I have seen plenty of people using it in a way that just makes more, not less, work for them. But that’s… not really the point of this article?
Re:
Everything I did was published here if you are curious: https://www.freezenet.ca/experiment-i-tried-using-chatgpt-as-a-writing-assistant/
The short of it is that I used ChatGPT and used the following prompt:
After that, I meticulously searched for what was changed between the original article and the changes the bot made so I could determine whether I liked the changes or not.
Granted, this was mixed in with so many other things happening such as putting together and researching different articles, producing Youtube video’s, and, of course, social media marketing for my site (mixed in with a day job to pay the bills).
So, I can admit that didn’t help my cause, but I do know it was whole days worth of work that was introduced when incorporating ChatGPT (my guesstimation was 4 days in all of actual work spread over that month and 5 days because that’s where I could cram it into what little free time I had).
Re: Re:
Ah. I think part of the issue here is thinking that ChatGPT is the right tool for this sort of thing. Earlier this year, I wrote about the many steps I took to seeing if I could get AI to write a Techdirt post, which also explains many of the steps I take in having it help me edit a post. And none of it is handing it off to a chatbot: https://www.techdirt.com/2026/02/18/how-close-can-ai-get-to-writing-a-techdirt-post/
The first thing is using agentic hooks, rather than a chatbot, which has a specific opinion. The second is then being able to create a very detailed (mine is many paragraphs long) system prompt so that the tool knows what it’s doing. The third is then training it directly on a lot of my previous writing AS WELL AS a full style guide. And then, finally, not just providing it with what I wrote, but also all the source material as well.
And then prompting it with a long and detailed prompt (not just “how would you fix this.”
The thing about these tools is that for them to work well in specific scenarios, they need context. And also the chatbots already have hidden system prompts that make them less useful for this sort of thing.
And yes, my set up took a lot of work, but after being set up it’s now simple (I actually write directly in the tool I built and click a button to do the review — and the tool makes suggested changes with red/greenlines in a sidebar which I can review/change/accept/reject.
Re: Re: Re:
That… is a lot of work. I have my doubts I’m willing to take things this far just to twist, contort, wrestle, punch, pull my hair out, and force AI to work in reasonable conditions like that. I think I’ll just stick to the standard method of writing articles and publishing them.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yes. It is a lot of work. And that’s kind of my point. Those selling AI as some sort of magic potion that doesn’t involve actual work are lying to you. But for those willing to put in some initial work, the benefits are there. Yes, it was a lot of work to initially setup, but once it was working, it continues working. Now it’s just pushing a button and getting back very useful results every time.
This is the point I keep trying to make. It can be helpful, but not in the way that it’s being marketed for the most part.
The headline is wrong
Your kid did something cool as hell, and you should be proud. But it’s very clear from the article that the headline is wrong:
“My Kid Vibe Coded Their Way To Actually Learning Math”
Nope – I would argue that they had already learned and understood the math. The tell is that they were able to correct the study tool’s mistakes and make it something useful enough to share with friends. Practice is a good thing – it’s useful and necessary to do well on a quiz – but your kid had already figured out the puzzle, so to speak.
For what it’s worth, I’m a math professor who specializes in math education, so I very much have a stake in discussions around AI tools. And, I should admit that I am very skeptical of AI in general. And, again, I’m not trying to diminish the fact that your kid did something cool with AI. But I would also argue that the use of AI is almost tangential to what is really cool here – that they understood the puzzle well enough that they could make something useful to share with their friends.
So much of the push of using AI in education is to make learning individualized (see Khan Academy’s promo material), and I believe (professionally) that that is exactly the wrong direction. Learning is so much richer, much more successful, and just much better when it is social (as in your kid’s group of friends).
For a really good perspective on useful edtech in math, check out Dan Meyer, he has a lot more to say on this than I want to put in a comment.
Re:
(I should add a little humility to my earlier comment here, I wasn’t there, and I don’t know your kid, so I can’t really say anything for certain. But it sure sounds to me like your kid figured out the math part well before the vibe coding started.)
What I see here is:
A parent who is engaged
A kid who is interested
A committed, helpful study group
Kids with one or more of the above are going to do better regardless of any AI involvement, and kids without any of the above won’t be saved by it… it would seem to me to be far more likely to be misued and be detrimental, in such cases. A crutch instead of a tool thing.
The difference for your kid wasn’t AI, it was you, and him himself, and everything else around it. You and he and his friends deserve the W, not a bot.
So wtf are we even doing here?
Re:
Basically agreeing with you here.
I know from first hand experience that support around you can easily make a huge difference.
I remember when my parents wanted to get me into sports. One of those sports was volleyball. The coaches that were there wanted to look around for the “star player” and focus all of their attention on them. I didn’t quite make it there and was basically ignored like a good portion of the rest of the team. When it came time to play, I, along with a chunk of the team, were benched. The few that were played carried the team and the whole team couldn’t get very many wins on the court. I was annoyed and left the sport completely and I’m sure others did as well. We barely were taught anything at all throughout the whole experience. Just, take part in the drills and don’t complain.
The next thing I tried was 5 pin bowling. My average wound up being around 120 points overall. I didn’t improve much beyond that. The coach there pulled me aside one day and asked me what I was focusing on the entire time. I told him it was the pins at the end of the alley. He told me, “uh, no, that’s way too much distance to focus on that. Focus on the darts on the lane that are much closer and throw a few practice balls to see how it feels.” I did and almost immediately, my average jumped to about 240 points per game. During one of the tournaments we played, I managed to dial in even more and scored 5 strikes in a row, nailing a 300+ point game much to the surprise of the rest of the team. Ended up being a top performing player which was not bad considering I was considered the lowest performing player on the whole team before. Only thing that held me back at that point was hitting head pins.
The difference was a coach pulling me aside for 5 minutes to help tweak my game. Not much help needed, but it made a massive difference.
I rarely get supported in anything and have been struggling ever since.
Still, point still stands: when you are supported by others around you, it massively increases your chances of success.
Re: So wtf are we even doing here?
What you’re doing is called shitposting. Pretending to engage with an article with a long, tedious post of whataboutism.
The rest of us are discussing llms.
Re:
Trying to find the one magical use case for gen AI that will wipe away all the harms, same as always.
Re:
AI is a tool. All tools have uses and something that they do well. And just like any tool you can misuse or misapply the tool too
I remember reading Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine, back when I was a young ‘un. The lesson there is the same as what is shown here, albeit our host here is more pointing out that the coding was easy[ier].
Or, to reprise a more recent meme:
“To replace programmers with robots, they will have to accurately describe what they want. We’re safe.”
slopmongering
Anyone else really tired of Masnick’s AI slopmongering here? Techdirt can and should do better, and really should move on from his sort of deeply biased and destructive promotional posts.
Re:
Nothing in this post was “slopmongering.” I detailed how the tools are being misused in many ways that damage education, but gave one example that was both interesting and surprising to me, but which I saw happen right here.
Would you prefer I lie to you and pretend what happened didn’t happen?
If so… that’s weird, and you’re probably better served by sites that will lie to you to make you feel better.
Learning requires engagement
It’s not that AI helped your child learn; it’s that AI was a tool that helped your child achieve a personal goal—writing this app—and learning happened along the way. People, especially young people, have an innate desire to learn. Our educational system frequently gets in the way of that desire. Here, AI reduced some of the friction involved in learning-by-doing.
Even at my much older age, often the best way for me to learn something new is to find some personal application for the skill. It’s one thing to say “I need to learn Docker,” or even “I need to learn Docker so I can get a better job,” but it’s more likely to happen if it’s “I need to learn Docker because I want to have this application in my house and that application requires Docker.” You’ve got a personal stake in it, and there’s a personal benefit to the learning.
The U.S. school system often forgets the “and here’s a concrete, immediate example of how this knowledge will be useful to you” part.
Re:
Yes. I agree.
I consume takes and opinions I disagree with daily and go back the next day to read the same author or outlet. But certain topics over the decades have been able to engender literal years of bad takes — not just disagreeable but poorly reasoned or dishonest. And that will get me to boycott and take my eyeballs elsewhere. The USA invasion of Iraq was one of those items and I stopped reading a lot of authors and outlets over that topic. The Israeli genocide in Gaza, and the West Bank, is another. This is the only news outlet so consistently producing bad takes on AI that I might stop reading
Techdirt after many years of daily consumption, unless you can cool it with these bad, optimistic takes. Not that you would let such things alter your editorial content but I thought you might want to know the cost of your commitment here. I don’t just disagree with your overall position on AI I think all of your defenses are stupid and make you look bad and make me feel bad reading them.
Re:
So you’re one of a few people here complaining that this is a bad take, but it’s weird that no one ever explains why.
This actually happened. I’m explaining what happened and why I found it interesting, while noting the also factual reality that the tools are a mess for many educational settings and causing real problems.
Would you prefer that I just start lying about what the tech did to make you feel better? If so, then you should exit. I’m not going to lie to soothe your feelings about a technology. I will explain both its many limitations and problems as well as where it can be useful.
If you would prefer being lied to, find another site to do that.
Re: Re:
I think we’d all prefer to see you put a little more focus on the downsides of AI tech and the industrialization associated with it, like data centers and the massive costs (economic and environmental) that those are having now and will have in the future. It’s all well and good to point at AI fucking up legal citations and laugh at lawyers who think using AI to cite fake legal cases is a smart idea. But where are stories about, say, the water and noise pollution caused by data centers, or the Dead Internet Theory becoming less speculation and more factual as AI slop invades and takes over sites like Pinterest, Patreon, and DeviantArt? And that’s to say nothing of the likes of deepfakes and AI-generated NCII—like, say, 4chan’s /r/ board becoming so overrun with that shit that a single Wired story about the board becoming a haven for genAI NCII seems to have caused 4chan to take said board down.
The problem with Techdirt’s coverage of AI is that coverage of the negatives of AI seem limited to surface-level concerns and “ha ha, look at the dumbass believing AI”–type stories, whereas coverage of the few positives associated with AI all seem to ignore the very real concerns people have and go right for a low-key version of the “AI really will be a life-altering tech” evangelism you see AI bros doing. I’m willing to admit that there can and will be positive uses of the tech we colloquially call AI. But when all the criticism of AI is buried under layers of soft AI evangelism, it’s hard to see what y’all do as much different than the hardcore AI evangelism like all that “AI will democratize creativity” bullshit.
Re: Re: Re:
Don’t forget jumping on and amplifying any ‘I think AI will be useful’ takes they can whilst downplaying or ignoring ‘I think AI is causing problems and I don’t want it’ ones.
Such as, for example, publishing this puff piece, and not saying word one about this: https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/encyclicals/documents/20260515-magnifica-humanitas.html
Re: Re: Re:
I’ve read a bunch about those things, but don’t have a particularly strong opinion on them, and the focus of Techdirt for the 29 years it’s been around is to write about things where I have a strong opinion about them, and don’t feel they’re being accurately portrayed elsewhere. There is plenty of discussion about data centers elsewhere. I honestly have zero idea what I could add to that discussion.
Interesting story, but not one that I was aware of.
And, as per usual, at Techdirt I have a list of things I want to write about that is hundreds of stories long, and I get to maybe 10% of them.
I honestly have little time for anyone who is like “how dare you not cover this story?” We cover what we want to cover and it’s great to hear what else people would like us to cover, and we’ll do as much as we can of what interests us (which again, I get to maybe 10% of what I can cover).
If we had enough financial support to hire more writers to cover more, I would cover more. But, we have our very small crew and we cover what we find most interesting. That may or may not be what you find most interesting.
Re: Re: Re:2
Yeah, basic gist is that /r/ (4chan’s longtime NSFW-friendly requests board) had basically been overrun with requests for NCII for months because genAI tech had gotten that good. Wired published a story about that state of affairs last Friday, and within a day or so, the board and every thread on it was replaced with a “file not found” message. Other outlets had run similar stories, but I’m assuming they didn’t get much traction because they weren’t as big as Wired.
I get that, and that’s fair. That said, the way Techdirt generally covers AI now does seem a bit more slanted in favor of AI rather than against (or at the bare minimum, neutral towards) AI. The criticism of the site’s coverage is less about “oh, you MUST cover this story!” and more about “hey, so, people have been talking about the overly negative consequences of AI for a while now, and it seems like you guys are ignoring or downplaying it”. This is not to say you must change your coverage and go all-in on criticising and demonizing AI. (Though I wouldn’t be disappointed if you went that route on genAI!) What I am saying is that talking about AI in a way that doesn’t dismiss the concerns of people pointing out the damage that the AI industry can do (and is doing) would be better, not worse, for Techdirt’s AI coverage.
A little exploration of the concerns about AI—the way AI evangelists are threatening to blow up the jobs market without having any real plan for how society should take care of all the people AI will put out of work, the chemical and noise pollution from large data centers, the way politicians and techbros are working together to put up new data centers where citizens don’t want them—would be nice, even if it doesn’t become a massive part of the site. Dismissing those and other, similar concerns as “people being instantly and stupidly negative against AI” doesn’t do anyone any favors.
Re: Re: Re:3
I second everything stone said. Also you obviously are a proud parent and should be when your 12 yr old does something like he did. I won’t fault you for exuberance on that front.
But I want to delve more on this point:
I hate how much effort has gone into promoting AI when the product itself is still far from being able to actually do what is promised consistently. It is advertised as something that can do anything you just need to write the right prompt. What a bunch of hogwash!
Yes, GenAI has its uses and when applied in those limited situations it can be a force multiplier. Just as Mike found it helpful for reviewing his work and others have found similar examples, I too use AI to rapidly review documents and organize data. Despite these limited successes, AI is overhyped, oversold, overpromised, and incapable of fully replacing people.
Consumers and businesses are being told they have to accept all the downsides of AI implementation because otherwise you are just a luddite or going to lose all the money.
I would argue most businesses need Automation not AI to make their business better. It really is obvious AI evangelists are just in it for the money with how shamelessly they push unnecessary AI on the world.
Again, it is your site and you can write about any topic you want. It would be nice to see more articles that talk about AI as objectively as you approached the overhype of 5G and its roll-out.
Re: Re: Re:4
And I have consistently said that it’s overhyped and oversold by the big AI companies. Not once have I suggested otherwise. I also think that they’re all full of shit in claiming that it will replace jobs. I wrote a whole thing on how that was bullshit. If anything it just helps people at the edges of their jobs, and isn’t good at all for replacing people.
So I agree with you and have written as much.
So I honestly don’t get this line of complaints. It seems that every single time I say something, where I put directly into context some way in which the tech is helpful a bunch of people start screaming about me about what an asshole I am because I haven’t 100% condemned the tech.
But I have called out the overhype and bullshit marketing projections. And that’s just not good enough for some people?
Honestly, the annoying thing here is it makes me want to write about the downsides of AI much, much less because that’s so tired. I tried to find a narrow area that I could write about that was neither unbounded hype, nor overhyped doom and gloom. I found a realistic line, and I get yelled at for it as well.
So, honestly, that makes me feel like I should fuck off even trying to talk about the negatives since people are going to ignore that anyway.
I have to be honest, it really feels like a bunch of people here are desperate to have me lie to feel soothed. It’s fucking weird.
Re: Re: Re:5
For the record, I’ve said that yes, what we colloquially call AI will have some beneficial and positive uses. And when I call out the notion that Techdirt is either ignoring or downplaying the negatives of AI, I’m not calling out you in particular. (If I made you feel that way, I apologize.) My griping is about the general tenor of several articles over the past couple of months by several writers who are all “everyone who is against AI is just against nuanced discussions”. The people who are against AI just want their valid concerns about the technology (and the industry popping up around it) addressed with seriousness instead of being dismissed as a bunch of nutters who are against AI only because of “anti-AI propaganda”.
Again, this isn’t to tell you how to run your site. Alls I’m saying is that AI critics who say “hey, AI is kind of shit, and here’s why” are more likely to be dismissed as neo-Luddites by some of the more AI-friendly authors here. Attacking you for it when you don’t do it is unfair and bullshit; I’ll be the first one here to say that. But it does feel like the general tenor of Techdirt in re: AI over the past few months has been about, at a bare minimum, downplaying criticism of the AI industry. That’s what critics like me take issue with.
And just for the record: I am generally against genAI, but I recognize what you did with your son and I’m willing to be neutral about it—neither laudatory nor critical, but understanding that you found a positive yet narrow use case for it in a way that helped your child.
Re: Re: Re:5
I don’t understand the complaints on this particular article either. Sorry you feel that way. It is unwarranted for this article.
Re: Re: Re:5
That’s very ‘People called me names for voting for Trump, that’s why I voted for him two more times and changed everything I said I believed in’ logic. You want to write AI puff pieces because you like the technology and are happy to ignore the massive issues that are not being addressed in any way shape or form by the people providing it, just be honest about it, people would have an easier time respecting that at least.
Re: Re: Re:6
Nah, it’s not. Don’t be silly. What I’m saying is that I always write about what’s interesting to me. I have for 30 years. And for me, it’s interesting to find that line of where the tech is useful. Repeating a hundred other doom and gloom stories aren’t interesting to me at all.
And having people like you constantly scream at me doesn’t make me any more interested in exploring the downsides, because you have made it clear that you will not listen to anything that doesn’t confirm your priors.
What’s interesting to me is understanding the deeper ins and outs and nuances. And yet any time I write about that here I get a small group of screamers (including yourself) telling me that I have violated some unwritten rule about not outright condemning all uses.
So what good is it for me to write a piece exploring the downsides (which I’ve done many times) when it seems like your only interest in such an article is to make you feel better about a conclusion you’ve already reached? Exploring that issue feels like a waste of time. You’re already 100% certain the tech has no redeeming qualities and is all bad.
If I write a piece lying to you to make you feel good… that helps no one. If I write a piece exploring the nuances, then at least some people are willing to discuss it in good faith.
So I’m really not interested in just repeating the things that Ed Zitron rights. You can read him if you want to have someone tell you what you want to hear.
Re: Re: Re:
This is (in my opinion) a fair and constructive criticism.
This article reminds me of what is now a somewhat old CGP Grey video about how AI will eventually be able to be used as a personal tutor:
https://youtu.be/7vsCAM17O-M?si=3IVaHhPEBH7rPYyg
Pope: 42,000 word encyclical on ‘AI’ and its harms
Masnick: My kid’s powerpoint presentation is the biggest tech story of the weekend!
Re:
I mean, this is silly for multiple very stupid reasons.
Honestly, I’m not sure what the freaking Pope has to say on tech issues is particularly interesting or relevant to me. He’s not exactly known as being relevant on tech policy.
What my kid did was not a powerpoint presentation and I seriously question your comprehension ability if you think that’s what happened here.
There are approximately 50k articles about what the Pope said if you want to find one. There is (and can be) only one about what my kid did here. So, yeah, I actually do think that’s a better thing for me to write about, because no one else is going to cover it and it does present a different (and to me more interesting) view into how the tech is being used.
In the meantime, when you own the site, you are then free to give me editorial direction. Until then, you’re an anonymous troll, with poor reading comprehension ability.
Re: Re:
Yes, your reasons for thinking the criticism is silly are, indeed, very stupid.
Re: Re: Re:
…said the pot to the kettle.
Moaning fuckwits
If you want to read someone slag off ai: https://pivot-to-ai.com/
It you want this site to mirror that site, fuck off.
Glad you and your family are doing well. I have appreciated the site for a long time now.