> The fact that AI can do your homework should tell you how much
you still have to learn. The goal of learning is not to do a job. It's to enrich you, broaden your mind, and it takes work on your part.
In similar reasoning, you could argue that you can take a car to go anywhere, or let everything be delivered on your doorstep, so why should I my child learn to walk?
Let me rephrase their point, then:
The fact that AI can replace the work that you are measured on should tell you something about the measurement itself.
The goal of learning should be to enrich the learner. Instead, the goal of learning is to pass measure. Success has been quietly replaced with victory. Now LLMs are here to call that bluff.
And learning does do that. It is an economic compromise, though. Most of us have average (or worse) teachers. I have the feeling that that's what your arguing against, not learning per se.
> LLMs are here to call that bluff
Students have been copying from e.g. encyclopedias for as long as anyone can remember. That doesn't mean that an encyclopedia removes the need to learn. Even rote memorization has its use. But it's difficult to make school click for everybody.
The bluff I'm referring to here is the measurement. The notion that an educational experience can be meaningfully measured, and that such a measurement can be guaranteed well enough to prevent uneducated people from obtaining fraudulent certification.
I don't see learning as a compromise with economics. I see each as entirely irrelevant to the other. Certification is not a tool for learning; it is a tool for capitalism. A certification is nothing more than evidence of victory over the educational institution. Sure, the intended path to victory involves a lot of learning, but we humans can never be truly constrained to intended paths. That's a good thing: we shouldn't be.
Without school and tests, the majority of the people won't learn a thing. They are too dumb, selfish and lazy to do so. They need to be coerced into learning. The system may not be the rosy image you have in mind, but human nature makes it almost unavoidable.
> it is a tool for capitalism
All communist states had normal schools and certification. Without it, the state would collapse.
We're not completely free agents, and we can't be. That's one of those Rousseau-ian delusions. We need to cooperate to form a society, and it needs to be fairly strong in order to thrive. Hence, education.