📨 Weekly digest: 23 2025 | We're building a "smart" childcare system, not smarter humans
The uncomfortable truth about AI in education | The Daily Wild Summary
👋🏻 Hello, legends, and welcome to the weekly digest for week 23 of 2025.
Let's be brutally honest: the glowing rhetoric about AI "individualizing learning" is a smokescreen for a much more cynical reality. In the next few decades, the notion that "computers will do most teaching" isn't a utopian vision; it's an economic inevitability wrapped in technocratic jargon.
And the insistence that "schools will still exist because you still need childcare" isn't a fringe thought; it's the quiet acknowledgment of a societal shift few are willing to confront openly.
The core driver isn't necessarily AI's superior pedagogical ability but its unparalleled scalability and cost-efficiency. AI doesn't demand benefits, sabbatical leave, or empathy training. It doesn't get burnt out, call in sick, or question curriculum mandates.
In a system increasingly driven by metrics, standardized testing, and the relentless pressure to "optimize outcomes," a perfectly calibrated AI promises predictable, measurable, and infinitely replicable instruction.
The claim that "AI is a better teacher than humans" is a dangerous oversimplification bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Yes, an AI can process data faster, offer instant feedback, and tailor content to a diagnosed learning style.
But what constitutes "better teaching"?
We are rapidly moving towards a model where "learning" is equated with "information transfer" and "skill acquisition."
AI excels at this. But what about the less quantifiable yet profoundly critical aspects of education?
The spark of genuine curiosity ignited by an impassioned human, the development of nuanced social skills through navigating real-time group dynamics, and the moral and ethical quandaries explored through open-ended, human-led discussions.
These are not inefficiencies that need to be streamlined; they make us human.
AI's personalization is based on algorithms and past data. It's excellent at predicting what you need to learn next based on your performance:
But can it understand why a child is disengaged?
Can it sense a burgeoning passion that deviates from the pre-programmed learning path?
Can it offer genuine emotional support when a student struggles with something unrelated to the quadratic formula?
This "personalization" risks becoming a sophisticated echo chamber, funneling students down predetermined paths rather than fostering true intellectual autonomy and self-discovery.
If schools are primarily "childcare," education becomes a secondary function. This trend reflects a broader societal devaluation of children's holistic development. It suggests that once the "information transfer" is handled by machines, the remaining human element is merely supervisory, a placeholder until children are old enough to be fully productive economic units. This reduces childhood and adolescence's rich, complex tapestry to a mere logistical challenge.
The real, unspoken fear is not just about the quality of education but its inherent equity.
Will the "childcare" function primarily serve the masses, providing basic AI-driven instruction while truly human-centric, emotionally rich, and critically engaging education becomes a luxury reserved for the elite?
The wealthy will always find ways to provide their children with human mentorship, diverse experiences, and environments that foster creativity and critical thought – precisely the skills AI cannot replicate.
The rest will be "efficiently" educated by algorithms, trained for a future where adaptability and genuine human connection might be precisely what sets a few apart.
We are not just automating learning but redefining what it means to be educated.
And if we're not careful, we'll have a generation that excels at passing algorithmic tests but struggles to navigate the complexities of human interaction, critical ethical dilemmas, or even simply the messy, unpredictable beauty of being alive.
The "childcare" argument isn't just about managing kids; it's about managing the fallout of a system that prioritizes scalable efficiency over human flourishing.
What do you think?
I am looking forward to reading your thoughts in a comment.
Explore everything you need with AI: AI unbundled.
Yael.
📌 The Daily Wild Summary
🔥AI ethics and frontiers
🔥 The interconnected machine
🔥 Digital defenses
🔥 Converging currents
🔥 The algorithmic shift
Yael on AI, my personal views
Previous digest
📨 Weekly digest: 22 2025 | The efficiency trap
👋🏻 Hello, legends, and welcome to the weekly digest for week 22 of 2025.
📨 Weekly digest
Thank you for being a subscriber and for your ongoing support.
If you haven’t already, consider becoming a paying subscriber and joining our growing community.
To support this work for free, consider “liking” this post by tapping the heart icon, sharing it on social media, and/or forwarding it to a friend.
Every little bit helps!