Moneyshot: "The results are eye-opening. After six months, pupils using ai saw their average homework score rise by 18% across all subjects. The time they took to complete each assignment fell from an average of 64 minutes to 45. But come exam time, the same students scored 20% below their classmates who had not called on ai’s help. Homework scores once predicted exam performance; now those who score highest are, perversely, more likely to do worse in exams."
Study design: "David Stromberg of Stockholm University and Victor Lei and Wu Yanhui of the University of Hong Kong set out to fill the gap. They tracked 27,000 pupils aged 12-18 in China, where ai adoption has been fast. Around 80% reported using models such as Doubao and DeepSeek; the other 20% formed the control group."
> Homework scores once predicted exam performance
As with most training the journey is the point, not the destination.
That said, I think smart use of AI could help. It could explain concepts in a way that might help you understand better, it could probe your knowledge in a more dynamic way by tailoring questions, and so on. This requires the AI be restrained by some harness, not free to write down the answers for you.
> help. It could explain concepts in a way that might help you understand better
People say that all the time, but does anyone really think a lack of good explanations for things is a limiting factor in 2026? Or even 2010?
When I was in college, we had office hours with the prof and the TAs, we had group study sessions, and private tutors. Or you could ask your friends. All of those required going somewhere at a specific place and time and asking someone else to give up their time for you.
AI gives you a way to get the same help without asking another human. Say of that what you will, but not everyone was comfortable asking other humans for help even back then.
You also have your book and a wealth of online resources, which also don't require interacting with someone, and which have the same information the AI is trained on. Fundamentally nothing is different. We don't see positive outcomes from students using AI as an aid even if hypothetically it could be possible.
Back when I was studying there were topics which I had a really hard time grasping. Having a personal tutor that I could ask specific questions and have a back and forth with would have helped a lot I think. At least the few times I did have such an opportunity that was definitely the case.
Kids are, by and large, lazy however. Hell, adults are lazy, this isn't even an indictment on kids or even people in general, I think our bodies & brains are simply wired to seek the path of least resistance from an evolutionary POV.
Kids won't be using LLM tooling as a personal tutor following some sort of Socratic method, they'll ask it to solve their home/coursework for them and blindly copy/paste the answer. Hell, they'll just manually copy down what's on their screen if copy/pasting isn't possible for whatever reason.
Obviously exceptions exist, but I'd wager from being an ex-kid myself the type of kid who would genuinely use these tools for actual proper self-tutoring would be an extreme rarity.
> This requires the AI be restrained by some harness
How would this magic harness look like and why would anyone use it?
"I need help with my homework, but I don't want answers, just guidance on how to get to the answer".
Put that in your agents.md.
I'm way beyond homework, but I do appreciate the compliment on seeming young!
I meant: what's going to stop the average lazy student from ignoring whatever harness the university recommends and instead use an unrestricted LLM, thus learning nothing?
> what's going to stop the average lazy student from ignoring whatever harness the university recommends and instead use an unrestricted LLM, thus learning nothing?
Nothing until they start failing exams and maybe seeing the error of their ways. My suggestions wasn't for you, it was for the smart student who wants to use AI to enhance their learning but not have it do all the work.
But cheating isn't new. People have been cheating in school for centuries. It's easier now, but the consequences were always the same. At some point the chickens come home to roost and you pay the piper.
> But cheating isn't new. People have been cheating in school for centuries. It's easier now, but the consequences were always the same. At some point the chickens come home to roost and you pay the piper.
My concern is that with LLMs and above average bullshitting abilities, the chickens might never come home to roost.
I think that is fine, certain things are becoming less important to learn and certain things more important. With the pace of change it is likely to continue shifting.