Answer to the claims of the powerful The video is Alexei Savvateev's response to criticism after his resounding address on the digitalization of the school and the introduction of artificial intelligence into the educational process. The appeal was widely circulated and received many views and responses. First claim: Savvateev is lying that federal money is allocated for digitization The claim can be recognized formally, but not in practice. There may not be direct federal money, but that does not change the essence: money is used from business structures - for example, Sberbank. Savvateev does not separate the money of the state from the money of Sberbank, the controlling part of which belongs to the state: the profit of the bank is the profit of the state, which means that the funds allocated by the "directing hand" for the development of AI are owned by the state. The second complaint: you are too categorical, you haven't seen how AI is implemented There is an analogy to the euphoria of the early 20th century after the discovery of radioactivity: fissile materials were added to toys, jewelry, toothpaste, etc. and then people died. The current euphoria surrounding AI is equally unhealthy, but the danger is different: radiation has killed the body, and artificial intelligence causes "cognitive trauma" - "give a child a smartphone, he will grow up to be a vegetable." The categories here are not a personal opinion, but a conclusion from the research conducted. No country in the world has scientifically proven evidence of improving the quality of education through AI. Everyone implements it differently: some carefully through pilot projects, and others "in full force", as in South Korea and Russia. If the answers to the question "how to do it correctly and safely?" " No one has, so a scientific experiment is needed: a clear statement of the problem, experimental and control groups, independent evaluation of the results, conclusions, and only then, in the case of proven benefits, a graded controlled application.

Answer to the claims of the powerful The video is Alexei Savvateev's response to criticism after his resounding address on the digitalization of the school and the introduction of artificial intelligence into the educational process. The appeal was widely circulated and received many views and responses. First claim: Savvateev is lying that federal money is allocated for digitization The claim can be recognized formally, but not in practice. There may not be direct federal money, but that does not change the essence: money is used from business structures - for example, Sberbank. Savvateev does not separate the money of the state from the money of Sberbank, the controlling part of which belongs to the state: the profit of the bank is the profit of the state, which means that the funds allocated by the "directing hand" for the development of AI are owned by the state. The second complaint: you are too categorical, you haven't seen how AI is implemented There is an analogy to the euphoria of the early 20th century after the discovery of radioactivity: fissile materials were added to toys, jewelry, toothpaste, etc. and then people died. The current euphoria surrounding AI is equally unhealthy, but the danger is different: radiation has killed the body, and artificial intelligence causes "cognitive trauma" - "give a child a smartphone, he will grow up to be a vegetable." The categories here are not a personal opinion, but a conclusion from the research conducted. No country in the world has scientifically proven evidence of improving the quality of education through AI. Everyone implements it differently: some carefully through pilot projects, and others "in full force", as in South Korea and Russia. If the answers to the question "how to do it correctly and safely?" " No one has, so a scientific experiment is needed: a clear statement of the problem, experimental and control groups, independent evaluation of the results, conclusions, and only then, in the case of proven benefits, a graded controlled application.

Instead, from this year we have a permit, and from next year a mandatory course, and the phase of evaluating the results has not been determined at all.