I have tried and failed to get an LLM to make any useful contribution to my project in real-world mathematics. So maybe don't believe the hype. I suppose it's possible that at some point they will be more capable than humans, but it's by no means assured.
On the other hand, as was noted before the AI rush and before the recent political turmoil (but they will only have exacerbated it), the value of capital increasingly outweighs the value of labour. So if you want to have grandkids you might want to make money using your own skills while it's still possible.
First, don't limit your child's education to what you are good at. That is doing them a massive disservice. You don't have to be good at teaching something for your child to learn it. You just need to find and provide resources and help them self-navigate the topic.
Secondly, who cares if AI can do something better? That doesn't mean to avoid learning. People play chess even though grandmasters exist who will always be better than them. People learn to write even though there are professional novelists and poets. Not only is it OK to learn something even if others are better at it, that is kind of the entire point of education.
Fair enough. I have often the same feeling with chess though: the fact that computers are so much better than any human removes a little something to me.
In university, we had pretty powerful calculators. Mine had a "solve" button. We could bring them in our exams, but we were tested on figuring out what to ask the calculator. You needed to understand the topic well enough to tell that your result was off by an order of magnitude.
Humanities is also worth it, if only because it makes life so much more interesting. However it's not one of those things that can be forced upon someone. I hated a lot of it until I got to enjoy it on my own, without pressure.
I am not a parent, and I have no skin in this game, but I think that the future will still have space for a well-rounded human being. Even with all the fancy new tech, your child will still need to fix flat tires, negotiate, navigate ethical conflicts, cook, communicate with other people, apologise, speak up, and all the other things.
A lot of the things are fundamentals, right? Teach him/her that. Like he/she still needs to learn to read. Then do basic maths to know how much to pay for groceries, etc.
Prep for the worst, hope for the best. So, if the AGI, UBI doesn't happen, that still would be ok. And if it does, knowing things that are useful, how those AGI things work might come in handy. Maybe those will end up empowering the kids.
People, including the subject of this post, are more powerful in life on the basis of their literacy, numeracy, confidence, wide familiarity with a broad range of topics and social skills, notably their command of speech acts and attuning to/clicking with others.
The biggest educational determinator of life outcomes is literacy and the biggest determinator of career outcomes not already set at birth is social fluency.
Some suggested reading for the OP that other commenters haven't already touched on:
How Stanford teaches AI-powered creativity (2025) - by Jeremy Utley, director of executive education at the Hasso Plattner school of design: https://youtu.be/wv779vmyPVY
If your kid genuinely enjoys those things, you should teach them math and CS anyway so that they have a shot at being one of the people designing the AI or supervising it to discover new math. LLMs have broad but shallow knowledge and can brute-force certain well defined tasks but the holes in their capabilities become very apparent once you go beyond undergraduate level studies.
The uproar you see on HN is because most developers are web front-end or back-end developers and LLMs do especially well at those tasks because they have a lot of training data to work with and also because there are also a lot of influencers, snake-oil peddlers, and doomsayers trying to hype AI up for their own gain.
I hope indeed that AI stays at the shallow end. I dread a world where that's not the case, because then I think it will be a little harder to find purpose.
I don't think there is an alternate. Math and logics are mandatory for everything, not just CS. I'd teach Math, Science (Phys and Chem, biased towards history and experiments), Native Language (reading/writing/making speeches), History, one foreign language (mostly speaking but also some reading), Survival skills. Then I'll follow his interests to teach him something else.
I think the ^ are the minimum a good citizen needs. If you can't teach all of them maybe let him go to school as well, or hire someone to do the part you can't.
Regarding the future, yeah I share the some worry, but I guess we all have to go through it.
Calculators been able to do math for decades, we still teach math. It’s important to know enough to know when the calculator or AI are wrong, because the input was bad.
It also takes foundational knowledge to know what to type into a calculator or LLM.
I don't think this is true. For math, even with an LLM, you need to know how to ask the question properly to get a good answer. If you don't know the basics you'll end up talking in circles to describe what should be a pretty basic problem.
Instead of 120/6, you'd end up writing, "I'm on lunch with a few friends, we got the bill and it was $120. There are 6 of us here. How much should each of us pay if we want to split the bill?"
Now imagine how complicated the prompt would get with a problem that's actually difficult and how easy it could be to state the question in a way that provided the wrong context. When this happens, without a foundation, you won't have any idea of the answer is way off or not.
Back when I was in school we'd have answers given to us and had to determine if they made sense without doing the exact calculation. This is very useful. With the 120/6 example. If the LLM said to pay $0.05 each, it should trigger something in a person to think that's not right and to examine the question that was asked. This may be an extreme example, but this stuff happens all the time.
There are also quick calculations that are useful, but where asking an LLM every time isn't practical. Price comparisons in a store, measuring stuff in your home to make sure a piece of furniture fits. Without any math foundation would they be able to read and understand a tape measure enough to actually measure and enter in the right stuff? Do you want them to need to consult an LLM to know that a wall that is 5 1/4" long will accommodate a cabinet that is 5 1/16" wide? These are things some people can't figure out today, and they had math class.
I can't imagine how helpless someone would feel if they had to reach for a phone with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure behind it just to answer basic questions that everyone around them can figure out in their head.
The foundation should always be there. It's more a question of how high do you go with it. But if the kid likes it and is good at it, why take that away from them? Also, remember that you're cherry picking exceptional examples of where it worked. There are a lot of examples where the LLMs have been embarrassingly bad at math (counting the number of "r" in "strawberry"). Math is built on rules, and LLMs are a text prediction engine... they don't necessarily know the rules or have real logic. LLMs also tend to look smart to someone who doesn't know the subject, and kind of dumb to the experts in a field.
As an aside, my high school had some kind of new math program that failed to go into depth on each topic of mathematics that people normally learn. I had been really good at math, but this screwed me over in college and now, 25 years later, I'm still upset that a solid foundation in math is taken from me. I could self-study, but it's harder to prioritize that when there are so many things competing for attention. When the kids are young is the time to do it.
I have tried and failed to get an LLM to make any useful contribution to my project in real-world mathematics. So maybe don't believe the hype. I suppose it's possible that at some point they will be more capable than humans, but it's by no means assured.
On the other hand, as was noted before the AI rush and before the recent political turmoil (but they will only have exacerbated it), the value of capital increasingly outweighs the value of labour. So if you want to have grandkids you might want to make money using your own skills while it's still possible.
You haven't said why you are home-schooling?
> ... that I would not be great at teaching...
First, don't limit your child's education to what you are good at. That is doing them a massive disservice. You don't have to be good at teaching something for your child to learn it. You just need to find and provide resources and help them self-navigate the topic.
Secondly, who cares if AI can do something better? That doesn't mean to avoid learning. People play chess even though grandmasters exist who will always be better than them. People learn to write even though there are professional novelists and poets. Not only is it OK to learn something even if others are better at it, that is kind of the entire point of education.
Fair enough. I have often the same feeling with chess though: the fact that computers are so much better than any human removes a little something to me.
In university, we had pretty powerful calculators. Mine had a "solve" button. We could bring them in our exams, but we were tested on figuring out what to ask the calculator. You needed to understand the topic well enough to tell that your result was off by an order of magnitude.
Humanities is also worth it, if only because it makes life so much more interesting. However it's not one of those things that can be forced upon someone. I hated a lot of it until I got to enjoy it on my own, without pressure.
I am not a parent, and I have no skin in this game, but I think that the future will still have space for a well-rounded human being. Even with all the fancy new tech, your child will still need to fix flat tires, negotiate, navigate ethical conflicts, cook, communicate with other people, apologise, speak up, and all the other things.
A lot of the things are fundamentals, right? Teach him/her that. Like he/she still needs to learn to read. Then do basic maths to know how much to pay for groceries, etc.
Prep for the worst, hope for the best. So, if the AGI, UBI doesn't happen, that still would be ok. And if it does, knowing things that are useful, how those AGI things work might come in handy. Maybe those will end up empowering the kids.
People, including the subject of this post, are more powerful in life on the basis of their literacy, numeracy, confidence, wide familiarity with a broad range of topics and social skills, notably their command of speech acts and attuning to/clicking with others.
The biggest educational determinator of life outcomes is literacy and the biggest determinator of career outcomes not already set at birth is social fluency.
Some suggested reading for the OP that other commenters haven't already touched on:
Tears (2014) - by Kevin Simler, ex-product manager for Palantir Technologies, Inc.: https://meltingasphalt.com/tears/
How Stanford teaches AI-powered creativity (2025) - by Jeremy Utley, director of executive education at the Hasso Plattner school of design: https://youtu.be/wv779vmyPVY
A Billion Voices: China's Search for a Common Language (2016) - by David Moser, former Dean of the Yancheng school at Peking University: https://archive.org/details/billionvoiceschi0000mose
Pre-ASI: The case for an enlightened mind, capital and AI literacy in maximising the good life (2025) - by Hock (pseudonym): https://alitheiablog.substack.com/p/pre-asi-the-case-for-an-...
The Resourceful Life (2023) - by Venkatesh Rao, ex-Xerox consultant and author: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2023/07/06/the-resourceful-life/
If your kid genuinely enjoys those things, you should teach them math and CS anyway so that they have a shot at being one of the people designing the AI or supervising it to discover new math. LLMs have broad but shallow knowledge and can brute-force certain well defined tasks but the holes in their capabilities become very apparent once you go beyond undergraduate level studies.
The uproar you see on HN is because most developers are web front-end or back-end developers and LLMs do especially well at those tasks because they have a lot of training data to work with and also because there are also a lot of influencers, snake-oil peddlers, and doomsayers trying to hype AI up for their own gain.
I hope indeed that AI stays at the shallow end. I dread a world where that's not the case, because then I think it will be a little harder to find purpose.
I don't think there is an alternate. Math and logics are mandatory for everything, not just CS. I'd teach Math, Science (Phys and Chem, biased towards history and experiments), Native Language (reading/writing/making speeches), History, one foreign language (mostly speaking but also some reading), Survival skills. Then I'll follow his interests to teach him something else.
I think the ^ are the minimum a good citizen needs. If you can't teach all of them maybe let him go to school as well, or hire someone to do the part you can't.
Regarding the future, yeah I share the some worry, but I guess we all have to go through it.
Yes, that makes sense. I am trying to think about what the alternative is, but I also don't see it.
Calculators been able to do math for decades, we still teach math. It’s important to know enough to know when the calculator or AI are wrong, because the input was bad.
It also takes foundational knowledge to know what to type into a calculator or LLM.
Fair enough, but I fear the necessary foundational knowledge becomes smaller and smaller as LLMs get better.
I don't think this is true. For math, even with an LLM, you need to know how to ask the question properly to get a good answer. If you don't know the basics you'll end up talking in circles to describe what should be a pretty basic problem.
Instead of 120/6, you'd end up writing, "I'm on lunch with a few friends, we got the bill and it was $120. There are 6 of us here. How much should each of us pay if we want to split the bill?"
Now imagine how complicated the prompt would get with a problem that's actually difficult and how easy it could be to state the question in a way that provided the wrong context. When this happens, without a foundation, you won't have any idea of the answer is way off or not.
Back when I was in school we'd have answers given to us and had to determine if they made sense without doing the exact calculation. This is very useful. With the 120/6 example. If the LLM said to pay $0.05 each, it should trigger something in a person to think that's not right and to examine the question that was asked. This may be an extreme example, but this stuff happens all the time.
There are also quick calculations that are useful, but where asking an LLM every time isn't practical. Price comparisons in a store, measuring stuff in your home to make sure a piece of furniture fits. Without any math foundation would they be able to read and understand a tape measure enough to actually measure and enter in the right stuff? Do you want them to need to consult an LLM to know that a wall that is 5 1/4" long will accommodate a cabinet that is 5 1/16" wide? These are things some people can't figure out today, and they had math class.
I can't imagine how helpless someone would feel if they had to reach for a phone with billions of dollars worth of infrastructure behind it just to answer basic questions that everyone around them can figure out in their head.
The foundation should always be there. It's more a question of how high do you go with it. But if the kid likes it and is good at it, why take that away from them? Also, remember that you're cherry picking exceptional examples of where it worked. There are a lot of examples where the LLMs have been embarrassingly bad at math (counting the number of "r" in "strawberry"). Math is built on rules, and LLMs are a text prediction engine... they don't necessarily know the rules or have real logic. LLMs also tend to look smart to someone who doesn't know the subject, and kind of dumb to the experts in a field.
As an aside, my high school had some kind of new math program that failed to go into depth on each topic of mathematics that people normally learn. I had been really good at math, but this screwed me over in college and now, 25 years later, I'm still upset that a solid foundation in math is taken from me. I could self-study, but it's harder to prioritize that when there are so many things competing for attention. When the kids are young is the time to do it.
Learning how to learn has been a boon throughout out history.
Math has been a staple for hundreds of years.
Being flexible and working in industry's as they start or change will help.
I would dual class social skills and martial arts... aka make them like you, if they dont just beat em up...
Philosophy - To understand oneself in the grand scheme of things. Models/Frameworks and not dogma.
Psychology - Mind _is_ Everything. Psychology is just applied philosophy and teaches one to understand/modulate our mind according to a worldview.
Logic/Maths/Science/Engineering/Technology - To understand the objective world and earn a livelihood.
Humanities/Art - What makes us Human. May/May-not earn a livelihood.
Worldly Wisdom - How to adjust to people/society to get what you want.
AI/Programming/etc. - Tools to be used in aid of the above but not an end in themselves.