章节 1：阅读危机与人工智能时代的教育焦虑

📝 本节摘要：

本节作为访谈的开篇，主持人 Ezra Klein 列举了令人担忧的数据：高中生为了乐趣而阅读的比例在过去几十年中发生了惊人的逆转，且学生的阅读能力和测试成绩正在下滑。在此背景下，生成式 AI 的出现加剧了危机感——它能瞬间完成阅读摘要、代写论文甚至解答数学题。这种技术不仅引发了关于“作弊”的讨论，更让身为家长的 Klein 对未来感到迷茫：如果不知道未来经济和社会需要什么，当下的教育究竟该如何培养孩子？

[原文] [Speaker A]: Here's a statistic I've been thinking about recently: in 1976 about 40% of high school seniors had read six books or more for fun in the last year only about 11% hadn't read a single book for fun. Today those numbers are basically reversed about 40% haven't read a single book for fun. If you are looking for this you see it everywhere right now there are all these headlines about how kids are not reading the way they once did there are all these stories quoting professors even at Ivy League universities about the way in which when they try to assign the reading that they've been assigning their entire careers their students they just can't do it anymore. We're losing something we can see it on test scores that over the last decade we just see the number of kids reading at grade level slipping then of course the pandemic accelerated that so if you were simply asking how are the kids doing on some of these intellectual faculties that we once thought were the core of what education was trying to promote they're not doing well.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我最近一直在思考一个统计数据：在1976年，大约40%的高中毕业生在过去一年里为了乐趣阅读了六本或更多的书，只有大约11%的人连一本书都没读过。而今天，这些数字基本上颠倒了：大约40%的人为了乐趣连一本书都没读过。如果你在关注这个问题，你会发现这种现象随处可见。现在到处都是关于孩子们不再像过去那样阅读的头条新闻；到处都是引用教授们故事的报道，甚至在常春藤盟校，当教授们试图布置他们职业生涯中一直布置的阅读作业时，他们的学生根本无法完成了。我们正在失去一些东西。我们可以在考试成绩上看到这一点，在过去的十年里，我们眼看着达到年级阅读水平的孩子数量在下滑，然后当然，疫情加速了这一进程。所以，如果你只是问，孩子们在我们曾经认为是教育试图促进的核心智力能力方面表现如何，答案是他们表现得并不好。

[原文] [Speaker A]: And then as if we summoned it as if we wrote it into the script here comes this technology generative AI that can do it for them. Imagine you could read any book in less than 30 seconds no matter how long it is that'll read the book and summarize it for you any style non-fiction book in 10 minutes that'll write the essay for you. GPT is going to do the bulk of the writing Copilot is good for factual information and GPTZero helps you not get caught. That'll do the math problem even shown its work for you and it doesn't matter if the question is typed out or handwritten it works on both. Yeah the future is crazy of course using it that way we call cheating but to them why wouldn't you if you have this technology that not only can but will be doing so much of this for you for us for the economy why are we doing any of this at all?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 然后，就好像是我们召唤了它，就好像是我们把它写进了剧本里一样，这项技术——生成式AI（Generative AI）——来了，它可以替他们做这些事。想象一下，你可以在不到30秒的时间内读完任何一本书，无论它有多长，它都会为你阅读并总结；任何风格的非虚构类书籍，只要10分钟，它就能为你写出文章。GPT将完成大部分的写作，Copilot擅长提供事实信息，而GPTZero则帮助你避免被抓包。它甚至能为你做数学题，并展示解题过程，无论题目是打印的还是手写的，它都能搞定。是的，未来是疯狂的。当然，那样使用它我们称之为作弊，但对他们来说，为什么不呢？如果你拥有这项不仅能够、而且将会为你、为我们、为经济做这么多事情的技术，我们为什么还要做这些事呢？

[原文] [Speaker A]: And this intersects with an anxiety I have as a parent of a 3 and a 6-year-old. I don't know what the economy what society is going to want from them in 16 or 20 years and if I don't know what it's going to want from them what it's going to reward in them how do I know how they should be educated how do I know if the education I am creating for them is doing a good job how do I know if I'm failing them? The purpose of education in schools is profoundly shaken to its core. My guest today is Rebecca Winthrop she's the director of the Center for Universal Education at the Brookings Institute her latest book co-authored with Jenny Anderson is The Disengaged Teen: Helping Kids Learn Better Feel Better and Live Better. Rebecca Winthrop welcome to the show.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 这与我作为一个3岁和6岁孩子的父亲所产生的焦虑交织在一起。我不知道16或20年后，经济和社会需要他们具备什么。如果我不知道社会需要他们什么、会奖励他们什么，我怎么知道他们应该接受怎样的教育？我怎么知道我为他们创造的教育是否有效？我怎么知道我是否辜负了他们？学校教育的目标在其核心层面上受到了深刻的动摇。今天的嘉宾是 Rebecca Winthrop，她是布鲁金斯学会（Brookings Institute）普及教育中心的主任。她与 Jenny Anderson 合著的最新书籍是《原本不参与的青少年：帮助孩子学得更好、感觉更好、活得更好》（The Disengaged Teen: Helping Kids Learn Better Feel Better and Live Better）。Rebecca Winthrop，欢迎来到节目。

[原文] [Speaker B]: Lovely to be here.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 很高兴来到这里。

章节 2：教育的宗旨——在不确定的未来重塑核心技能

📝 本节摘要：

在本节中，对话正式进入核心议题。Ezra Klein 向嘉宾 Rebecca Winthrop 抛出了家长的终极困惑：当 AI 让未来的经济需求变得不可预测时，我们该如何教育孩子？Winthrop 提出了“为什么教、怎么教、教什么”的三维思考框架，强调教育不应仅仅是知识的“交易性传输”。双方探讨了教育的功利性（为了找工作）与本质（为了人的发展）之间的冲突。Klein 犀利地指出，过去我们要求人类像机器一样工作，现在机器却开始像人一样思考，这让教育的“交易”陷入混乱。Winthrop 认为，在 AI 能够通过所有考试的时代，培养孩子“做难事”的能力、内在驱动力以及成为“寻路者（wayfinders）”的灵活性，比单纯灌输内容更为关键。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Rebecca Winthrop welcome to the show.

[译文] [Speaker A]: Rebecca Winthrop，欢迎来到节目。

[原文] [Speaker B]: Lovely to be here.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 很高兴来到这里。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Ezra, I'm a three and a six-year-old... I feel like I cannot predict with AI what it is society will want or reward from them in 15, 16 years which makes this question in the interim how should they be educated, what should they be educated towards feel really uncertain to me. My confidence that the schools are set up now for the world they are going to graduate into is very very low. So you study education, you've been thinking a lot about education and AI, what advice would you give me?

[译文] [Speaker A]: Ezra（注：此处指主持人自述），我有两个孩子，一个三岁一个六岁……我觉得有了 AI，我无法预测15或16年后社会需要他们具备什么，或者会奖励他们什么。这让我对在此期间“他们应该如何受教育”、“教育的目标应该是什么”感到非常不确定。我对于目前的学校能否为他们毕业后进入的世界做好准备，信心非常非常低。你是研究教育的，你也一直在思考教育和 AI 的问题，你会给我什么建议？

[原文] [Speaker B]: So approximately a third of kids are deeply engaged, two-thirds of the kids are not. So we need to have learning experiences that motivate kids to dig in and engage and be excited to learn. So when friends or relatives ask me the same question I usually say look we have to think about three parts to the answer: why do you want your kids to be educated, what is the purpose of education? Because actually now that we have AI that can write essays and pass the bar exam and do AP exams just as good or better than kids we have to really rethink the purpose of education. The second thing we have to think about is how kids learn and we know a lot about that. And the third thing is what they should learn, like what's the content, what are the skills? People always think of education as sort of a transactional transmission of knowledge which is one important piece of it but it is actually so much more than that. Learning to live with other people, learning to know yourself and developing the flexible competencies to be able to navigate a world of uncertainty, those are kind of the "whys" for me. But you know I might ask you what, what are your hopes and dreams for your kids under the "why" before we get to the details of the skills?

[译文] [Speaker B]: 大约有三分之一的孩子深度参与学习，而三分之二的孩子则不然。所以我们需要创造能激发孩子深入钻研、积极参与并对学习感到兴奋的学习体验。当朋友或亲戚问我同样的问题时，我通常会说，看，我们必须从三个部分来思考答案：你为什么要让孩子受教育，教育的目的是什么？因为既然我们现在有了 AI，它写论文、通过律师资格考试和 AP 考试的表现和孩子一样好，甚至更好，我们就必须真正重新思考教育的目的。我们需要思考的第二件事是孩子如何学习，关于这一点我们知道的很多。第三件事是他们应该学什么，比如内容是什么，技能是什么？人们总是把教育看作是一种知识的交易性传输（transactional transmission of knowledge），这确实是其中重要的一部分，但实际上教育远不止于此。学会与他人共处，学会了解自己，并培养灵活的能力以驾驭充满不确定性的世界，这些对我来说才是“为什么”受教育的原因。但在我们讨论具体的技能细节之前，我想问问你，在这个“为什么”之下，你对孩子有什么希望和梦想？

[原文] [Speaker A]: Well I have a lot of hopes and dreams for my kids. I would like them to live happy fulfilling lives. I think I'm not naive and certainly in my lifetime the implicit purpose of education, the way we say to ourselves "did this kid's education work out", is "do they get a good job", right? That's really what we're, you know, pointing the arrow towards, right? The fact that maybe developed their faculties as a human being, the fact that maybe they learned things that were beautiful or fascinating, that's all great. But if they do all that and they don't get a good job then we failed them. And if they do none of that but they do get a good job then we succeeded. So I think that's been the reality of education. But I also think that reality relies a little bit on an economy, right, in which we've asked people to act very often as machines of a kind. And now we've created these machines that can act or mimic as people of a kind. And so now the whole transaction is being thrown into some chaos.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 嗯，我对我的孩子有很多希望和梦想。我希望他们过上幸福充实的生活。我觉得我并不天真，当然在我的一生中，教育的隐含目的——也就是我们判断“这孩子的教育是否成功”的标准——就是“他们找到好工作了吗”，对吧？这才是我们真正瞄准的目标，对吧？至于他们是否发展了作为人的能力，是否学到了美丽或迷人的东西，这些都很棒。但如果他们做了所有这些却没找到好工作，那我们就辜负了他们。而如果他们这些都没做，却找到了一份好工作，那我们就成功了。所以我认为这就是教育的现实。但我也认为，这种现实在某种程度上依赖于一种经济模式，即我们经常要求人类表现得像某种机器一样。而现在我们创造了这些可以表现得或模仿得像某种人一样的机器。所以现在，整个“交易”陷入了某种混乱之中。

[原文] [Speaker B]: The skills that I think are going to be most important are how motivated and engaged kids are to be able to learn new things. That is maybe one of the most important skills in a time of uncertainty: that they are go-getters, they're going to be wayfinders, things are going to shift and change and they're going to be able to navigate and constantly learn new things and be excited to learn new things. Because when kids are motivated, um, that that's actually a huge uh predictor of how they do. And we're going to want kids absolutely to know enough content so that they can be a judge of what is real and what is fake. Um, but we're also going to want them to have experiences where they're learning and testing how to come up with creative new solutions to to things which is not really what traditional public education has been about.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我认为最重要的技能将是孩子在学习新事物时的动力和参与度。在充满不确定性的时代，这可能是最重要的技能之一：他们要是进取者（go-getters），他们将成为寻路者（wayfinders）。事物会不断变迁，他们需要能够驾驭变化，不断学习新事物，并对学习新事物感到兴奋。因为当孩子有动力时，这实际上是他们表现如何的一个巨大预测指标。我们绝对希望孩子掌握足够的内容，以便他们能够判断什么是真、什么是假。但是，我们也希望他们拥有学习和尝试如何针对事物提出创造性新解决方案的经验，但这并不是传统公共教育的真正重点。

[原文] [Speaker A]: I think sometimes about this distinction between education as a a virtue and education is something that is instrumental. Education is training, right? Studying the classics was important not because it made it likelier that you got into law school, right, but because it deepened your appreciation of beauty, it deepened your capacities as a human being. And I think for reasons that make a lot of sense in many ways we drifted away from that. And I don't know that you build a society off of people just, you know, enjoying what they're studying. And at the same time I worry now we have pulled people into a conveyor belt that when they get to the other side of it there's not going to be that much there. And I don't even think you need to imagine AI for that, that's already happening to a lot of people. I think one reason you see a lot of anger among young people today is that the the deal often doesn't come through. You do all the extracurriculars, you get your good grades, you show up on time and then you graduate college and the good jobs and the interesting life you were promised just aren't there. And so there's something there that feels like it is getting thrown into question. If we don't know what the future's going to ask of us how can we be instrumental in the way we train people for it? We can't be super instrumental so we have to come up with a new plan.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我有时会思考教育作为一种美德（virtue）和作为一种工具（instrumental）之间的区别。教育是训练，对吧？学习古典文学之所以重要，不是因为它让你更有可能考上法学院，而是因为它加深了你对美的欣赏，加深了你作为人的能力。我认为出于很多在各方面都讲得通的原因，我们偏离了这一点。我不知道能否建立一个仅由享受学习的人组成的社会。但同时，我担心现在我们把人们拉进了一条传送带，当他们到达另一端时，那里并没有太多东西。我甚至认为不需要想象 AI 就能看到这一点，这已经在很多人身上发生了。我认为今天在年轻人中看到很多愤怒的一个原因就是，那个“交易”经常无法兑现。你参加了所有的课外活动，你拿到了好成绩，你按时出勤，然后你大学毕业了，但曾被许诺的好工作和有趣生活却并不存在。所以有些东西感觉受到了质疑。如果我们不知道未来会对我们要有什么要求，我们怎么能在培养人才的方式上做到工具化呢？我们无法做到超级工具化，所以我们必须想出一个新计划。

[原文] [Speaker B]: I mean we did not know collectively us the world that we would have generative AI that could basically write every, you know, seventh grade essay or college essay to get into university or, you know, the whole host of exams that are being administered um and are being passed by AI just as well or better than kids. So we have to come up with a new plan, like that is not the plan for success. And we need to have kids build that muscle of doing hard things because I worry greatly that AI will basically make a frictionless world for young people. It's great for me, I'm loving generative AI, but I have had several decades of brain development um where I know how to do hard things. So but kids are developing their brains, they're literally being neurobiologically wired for how to attend, how to focus, how to try, how to connect ideas, how to relate to other people and all of those are are not easy things.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我的意思是，我们——全世界——集体都不知道我们会拥有生成式 AI，它基本上可以写出每一篇七年级作文，或者申请大学的入学论文，或者通过各种正在进行的考试，而且 AI 考得跟孩子一样好，甚至更好。所以我们必须想出一个新计划，因为那（旧模式）不再是成功的计划了。我们需要让孩子锻炼“做难事”的肌肉，因为我非常担心 AI 基本上会为年轻人创造一个无摩擦的世界。这对我来说很棒，我很喜欢生成式 AI，但我已经经历了几十年的大脑发育，我知道如何做难事。但孩子们正在发育他们的大脑，他们在神经生物学层面上正在被“连接”——关于如何关注、如何专注、如何尝试、如何连接观点、如何与他人建立联系，所有这些都不是容易的事。

[原文] [Speaker B]: And I want to push back on something you said. You said "I don't know if kids just enjoy what they're learning it's going to help or people are really going to benefit from that." Engagement is very powerful. It's basically how motivated you are to um to really dig in and learn and it relates to what you do: do you show up, do you participate, do you do your homework? It relates to how you feel: do you find school interesting, um is it exciting, do you feel you belong at school? It relates to how you think: are you cognitively engaged, are you uh looking at what you learn in one class applying it to what it might mean in your real in your life outside or other classes? Uh and it's also how proactive you are about your learning. And all those dimensions really work together in education and it's a very powerful um uh construct to predict better achievement, better grades, better mental health, more enrollment in college, better understanding of content um and lots of other benefits to boot.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我想对你刚才说的一点提出异议。你说“我不知道如果孩子们只是享受他们正在学的东西是否有帮助，或者人们是否真的会从中受益。”参与度（Engagement）是非常强大的。它基本上是指你有多大的动力去真正钻研和学习。它与你的行为有关：你是否出勤，是否参与，是否做作业？它与你的感受有关：你是否觉得学校有趣，是否令人兴奋，你是否觉得在学校有归属感？它与你的思考有关：你是否在认知上投入了，你是否在思考课堂上学到的东西对你的现实生活或其他课程意味着什么？此外，它还关乎你在学习上的主动性。所有这些维度在教育中真正协同工作，它是一个非常有力的概念，可以预测更好的成就、更好的成绩、更好的心理健康、更高的大学入学率、更好的内容理解力以及许多其他额外的好处。

章节 3：学生参与度模型——被忽视的“乘客模式”

📝 本节摘要：

Winthrop 介绍了学生在学校中的四种参与模式：乘客模式（Passenger）、成就者模式（Achiever）、抵触模式（Resistor）和探索者模式（Explorer）。对话重点聚焦于“乘客模式”——这类学生表面上表现良好（按时交作业、不惹麻烦），但实际上处于“滑行（coasting）”状态，对学习毫无兴趣。Klein 指出，这种模式在 AI 时代最具危险性，因为 ChatGPT 等工具能完美充当“替补学生”，让原本就想“混日子”的学生更轻松地放弃思考，从而失去了培养核心元技能的机会。

[原文] [Speaker A]: So you have in in your book these four modes of engagement. Do you want to talk through them?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 你的书中提到了四种参与模式（modes of engagement）。你想聊聊它们吗？

[原文] [Speaker B]: Absolutely. So we found after three years of research that kids engage in four different ways. They're passenger mode, kids are coasting; achiever mode, they're trying to get perfect outcomes; resistor mode, they're avoiding and disrupting; and explorer mode is when they really love what they're learning and they dig in and they're super proactive. So that's the high-level framework. What what part do you want to dig in on?

[译文] [Speaker B]: 当然。经过三年的研究，我们发现孩子们的参与方式有四种。乘客模式（Passenger Mode），孩子们在随波逐流（coasting）；成就者模式（Achiever Mode），他们试图获得完美的结果；抵触模式（Resistor Mode），他们在逃避和破坏；而探索者模式（Explorer Mode）是指他们真正热爱自己正在学习的东西，深入钻研并且超级主动。这就是高层级的框架。你想深入探讨哪一部分？

[原文] [Speaker A]: Well why don't you go go through them? I think passenger mode is particularly interesting here so why don't we start there?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 嗯，不如你逐一介绍一下？我觉得乘客模式在这里特别有意思，不如我们就从那儿开始？

[原文] [Speaker B]: So passenger mode is difficult to spot often for parents and sometimes teachers because many kids in passenger mode get really good grades but are just bored to tears. They show up to school, they do the homework, they have dropped out of learning. So passenger mode is when kids are really coasting, doing the bare minimum. Some signs of this are your kid comes home and they do their homework as fast as possible. Another sign is that they say "Oh school's boring it's just boring I learn nothing."

[译文] [Speaker B]: 乘客模式通常很难被家长发现，有时连老师也察觉不到，因为很多处于乘客模式的孩子成绩其实很好，但他们只是无聊得要命。他们去学校，做作业，但他们已经退出了学习（dropped out of learning）。所以乘客模式就是孩子们真正在“滑行”，只做最低限度的事情。这方面的一些迹象包括：你的孩子回到家，以最快的速度完成作业。另一个迹象是他们说：“噢，学校很无聊，就是无聊，我什么也没学到。”

[原文] [Speaker B]: Kids are in passenger mode because school is actually too easy for them. We talked to so many kids who said "Look I you know I'm in in class and the teacher is going going over the math homework from yesterday and I got everyone right and I know the answers and it's 45 minutes of that and and I understand the kids who don't get it they need the help but you know I'm going to shop online." Or you know I have kids who say "Well I got the homework home and I know all I know how to do this stuff so I just put in ChatGPT and it did my problem set for me and then I you know turn it in." So that's when it's too too easy. Another version of why kids get into passenger mode is when it's too hard. School is too hard, you could have a neurodivergent kid, kids don't feel um you know they belong and so they're not tuning in, um they've missed certain pieces of skill sets that they really need. Knowledge and education is cumulative in many ways um and they get kind of overwhelmed and they need particular special attention. So that's kind of what's going on in passenger mode.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 孩子们处于乘客模式是因为学校对他们来说实际上太简单了。我们和很多孩子聊过，他们说：“你看，我在课堂上，老师在复习昨天的数学作业，我全做对了，我知道答案，但这要讲45分钟。我也理解那些没懂的孩子需要帮助，但你知道，我就去网购了。”或者，有的孩子说：“嗯，我把作业带回家，这些东西我都会做，所以我直接输入进 ChatGPT，它帮我做了习题集，然后我就交上去了。”所以，这是当学校太简单的时候。导致孩子进入乘客模式的另一个原因是当学校太难的时候。学校太难了，可能是神经多样性（neurodivergent）的孩子，或者孩子觉得自己在那里没有归属感，所以他们没有听进去；或者他们错过了某些他们真正需要的技能片段。知识和教育在很多方面是累积的，他们感到不知所措，需要特别的关注。这就是乘客模式里发生的事情。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Well one reason I wanted to start in passenger mode is that when I think about ways AI probably is now but can be very harmful it's the connection with that mode. Because in passenger mode what you want to do—and and many of us have done passenger mode at work and many of us have done it at school—in some ways passenger mode was what I aspired to be at school I just wasn't able to achieve it. But you're reading something you think is boring, you're reading something you don't want to be reading but you want to get a good grade. So maybe at an earlier point you would buy the SparkNotes right? But now you just have ChatGPT summarize it. And more than that you can have ChatGPT write the essay. Kids are getting better at telling ChatGPT "no you actually wrote too good of an essay like dumb it down a little bit." That you you've basically hired your own like fill-in student who can help you coast and that will help you get—if you're able to do it adroitly enough—decent grades but also whatever meta skills, forget the knowledge, whatever meta-skills are being taught—how to read a book, how to write an essay—you're not actually learning them. And that's I think when people think educationally about AI a bit of the fear and and something that I believe everybody believes is happening now so. So how do you think about that interaction?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 嗯，我想从乘客模式开始的一个原因是，当我思考 AI 现在可能正在造成、且可能造成非常大危害的方式时，正是它与这种模式的关联。因为在乘客模式下你想做的是——我们很多人在工作中都处于过乘客模式，很多人在学校也是——在某种程度上，乘客模式曾是我在学校渴望达到的状态，只是我没能做到。当你正在读一些你觉得无聊的东西，读一些你不想读但为了拿个好分数必须读的东西。也许在以前你会买 SparkNotes（注：一种文学学习指南，类似名著缩写），对吧？但现在你只需要让 ChatGPT 总结一下。不仅如此，你还可以让 ChatGPT 写论文。孩子们越来越擅长告诉 ChatGPT：“不，你写的论文太好了，把它改笨一点。” 你基本上雇佣了一个自己的“替补学生”来帮你混日子（coast），如果你手段够高明，这能帮你拿到不错的成绩，但也意味着无论原本在教什么元技能（meta-skills）——忘了知识本身吧，我是指无论在教什么元技能，比如如何读一本书、如何写一篇文章——你实际上都没有学到。我认为这就是人们从教育角度思考 AI 时的某种恐惧，而且我相信大家都认为这正在发生。那么，你怎么看这种互动？

章节 4：AI应用悖论——思维外包与作弊的“军备竞赛”

📝 本节摘要：

本节中，Winthrop 承认了当前教育界面临的棘手现状：虽然部分高动力学生能将 AI 用作辅助思考的工具（如润色、梳理逻辑），但更多学生正在利用它“走捷径”。Winthrop 分享了学生们展示的高超“作弊”技巧——从拆分提示词以规避检测，到使用专门的“AI 拟人化工具”故意加入拼写错误来欺骗查重系统。结论是残酷的：学校无法在技术层面战胜学生，“猫鼠游戏”注定失败，唯一的出路是彻底改变教学与评估的方式，而非单纯依赖封禁或检测工具。

[原文] [Speaker B]: I think you're 100% right. I've talked to kids all all over the country. I've seen lots of incidents or cases of highly motivated highly engaged kids who are using AI really well. Um they'll write the paper themselves they'll go in and use AI for research and help them copy edit they're doing the thinking and they've lined up the evidence to create a thesis and they've presented it in logical order on their own and that is the art of thinking and that's why we assign seventh graders to write essays or 10th graders to write essays. It's not that they're going to create you know incredible works of art it's to train them how to think logically and how to think in steps and that is a core component of critical thinking. So as long as kids are mastering that and the AI is helping that's a good use.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我觉得你说的百分之百正确。我和全国各地的孩子们都聊过。我见过很多案例，那些原本就动力十足、参与度很高的孩子，他们把 AI 用得非常好。比如，他们会自己写论文，然后用 AI 来做研究，或者帮他们进行文字编辑。他们在自己进行思考，自己罗列证据来建立论点，并按逻辑顺序呈现出来。这就是思考的艺术，也是为什么我们布置作业让七年级或十年级的学生写论文的原因。这并不是指望他们创作出惊世骇俗的艺术作品，而是为了训练他们如何逻辑清晰地思考，如何分步骤思考，这是批判性思维的核心组成部分。所以，只要孩子们掌握了这一点，而 AI 只是在辅助，那就是一种好的用法。

[原文] [Speaker B]: But a lot of kids are using it to do exactly like you said shortcut the assignments. So an an example one kid I talked to said um "Well you know"—this a high school kid—"for my essay I break the um prompt into three parts I run it in through three different generative AI models I put it together I run it through three anti-plagiarism checkers and then I turn it in." Another kid said "Yeah I do it I I run it through ChatGPT and then I run it through an AI humanizer which goes in and puts typos in and makes it you know..." Your kids are getting good at something I'm not sure what we want them getting good at but they're getting good at something.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 但很多孩子正如你所说，用它来在作业上“走捷径”。举个例子，有个孩子跟我说——这是一个高中生——“嗯，对于我的论文，我会把题目拆分成三个部分，分别输入到三个不同的生成式 AI 模型里，然后把结果拼凑起来，再跑一遍三个不同的反抄袭检测器，最后才提交。” 另一个孩子说：“是啊，我也这么干。我先用 ChatGPT 生成，然后把它放进一个‘AI 拟人化工具（AI humanizer）’里，这个工具会故意在文章里加点拼写错误，让它看起来……” 你的孩子们正在变得擅长某些事情，我不确定这是不是我们希望他们擅长的，但他们确实在变强。

[原文] [Speaker B]: Kids will find a way no matter what kids will find a way we cannot out maneuver them with technology. So so the first response when Gen AI came in was ban it block it get anti-plagiarism checkers in which are which are bad by the way. Like I talked to one kid who showed me he had this essay um and the plagiarism checker flagged 40% of it and he changed two words and then it went away it was all he's all good. So you know it is worrisome so what we need to do is shift what we're doing in our teaching and learning experiences.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 无论如何，孩子们总会找到办法的，孩子们总有对策。我们无法在技术手段上战胜他们。所以，当生成式 AI 刚出现时，第一反应是禁止它、屏蔽它、引入反抄袭检测器——顺便说一句，这些检测器很糟糕。就像我和一个孩子聊天，他给我看了一篇论文，抄袭检测器标记了40%的内容涉嫌抄袭，但他只改了两个词，标记就消失了，一切都通过了。所以你知道，这确实令人担忧。因此，我们需要做的是改变我们在教学和学习体验中所做的事情。

章节 5：个性化学习——点燃“火花”与系统性挑战

📝 本节摘要：

面对庞大的公立教育体系，Klein 质疑学校是否真能为每个孩子提供“个性化”的教育，认为其本质只能服务于平均水平。Winthrop 反驳了这种悲观论调，并分享了北达科他州的创新案例——“工作室（Studios）”模式，即允许学生自主设计课程来达成学业标准。她讲述了沉迷手机的学生 Kia 通过设计“历史主题密室逃脱”而重燃学习热情的故事。Klein 对此深有共鸣，回忆起自己通过撰写政治博客“激活”了学习动力，从而带动了其他原本不感兴趣的学科表现。双方一致认为，找到孩子的“火花（Spark）”是启动良性学习循环的关键。

[原文] [Speaker A]: One thing that I recognize as somebody who studies bureaucracies is that if you just think of US public education to say nothing of also private education to say nothing of global education it's educating a lot of kids and its ability to tune itself to every kid is going to be pretty modest. And what kids need is different but somehow you have to be orienting towards something that works for most of them even if you're not sure how to make it work for all of them. I'm curious how you think about that.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 作为一名研究官僚机构的人，我认识到的一点是，如果你看看美国的公立教育——更不用说私立教育或全球教育了——它正在教育大量的孩子，它针对每个孩子进行自我调整的能力将是相当有限的。孩子们的需求各不相同，但不知何故，你必须朝着对大多数人都有效的方向努力，即使你不确定如何让它对所有人都有效。我很好奇你怎么看这一点。

[原文] [Speaker B]: I am not sure I agree. I think you I agree with several things. One you are not alone there are many many kids who currently today are going through the system and feel like you. Two I agree with you that as sort of a bureaucratic system that is actually quite miraculous if you think about it like in every community across our country kids as young as 3 to 18 at the same time of day are getting themselves to a place Monday through Friday for a certain amount of days in the year. I mean that is a that is a organizational feat. And the thing I don't agree with is that once you're there you just have to design for the mean and the average. I think there's lots of examples that are relatively big scale that or at least not just one you know little school in a corner by one fabulous you know homespun teacher that do things differently and I think it actually just gets down to how we orchestrate teaching and learning experiences.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我不确定我是否同意。我想我有几点是同意你的。第一，你并不孤单，现在有很多很多正在经历这个系统的孩子都有和你一样的感觉。第二，我同意你所说的，作为一个官僚系统，这其实是一个相当奇迹般的存在，如果你仔细想想：在这个国家的每个社区，3岁到18岁的孩子在同一时间、周一到周五、一年中的特定天数里，都会把自己送到同一个地方。我是说，这本身就是一个组织上的壮举。但我不同意的是，一旦你到了那里，你就只能针对中位数和平均水平进行设计。我认为有很多相对大规模的例子——或者至少不只是角落里某位极具天赋的老师开办的一所小学校——在做着不同的事情。我认为这实际上归结为我们如何编排（orchestrate）教学和学习体验。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Give me one of those examples one of those examples of a schooling system able to educate in a personalized way at scale that seems to you to be replicable.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 给我举一个那样的例子，一个能够大规模地以个性化方式进行教育，并且在你看来是可复制的学校系统的例子。

[原文] [Speaker B]: I'll give you a couple. So there's an example of schools in North Dakota that have created "studios" for their adolescence and what are studios? They are self-created classes that a student can um design and so and they have to tell you or tell the teacher what standards they're meeting. I'll give you an example we have um a great character in the book I've done with Jenny Anderson The Disengaged Teen uh named um Kia and she was totally disengaged doom scrolling and in middle school and then these studios showed up. She got super into it because she was learning um history and science and she decided to design an escape room and she had to list out for herself these are the standards I'm meeting for whatever grade she was in 10th grade I think uh history and science and she did an escape room around the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy but she had to design this escape room that turned her on like nobody else um and that she she got super excited and she did several of those and then and then she actually said she was so motivated she went back to sort of normal classes. They're doing that across the district.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我给你举几个例子。在北达科他州有一些学校为青少年创建了“工作室（studios）”。什么是工作室？它们是学生可以自主设计的自创课程，他们必须告诉你或者告诉老师他们正在达到什么（教学）标准。举个具体的例子，我和 Jenny Anderson 合著的《原本不参与的青少年》一书中有个很棒的人物叫 Kia。她在中学时完全不参与学习，整天沉迷于刷手机（doom scrolling），后来这些“工作室”出现了。她变得超级投入，因为她正在学习历史和科学，她决定设计一个密室逃脱游戏。她必须自己列出：“这些是我正在达到的标准”——不管她是几年级，我想是十年级——涵盖历史和科学。她做了一个关于亚伯拉罕·林肯和约翰·F·肯尼迪遇刺案的密室逃脱，她必须亲自设计这个密室，这让她兴奋不已，前所未有。她超级兴奋，做了好几个这样的项目，然后她实际上说她非常有动力，于是她又回到了某种常规课程中。整个学区都在这样做。

[原文] [Speaker A]: I want to zoom in on something in that story which is that when the the student you brought up found the thing that lit her up she was then able to to to do better in in all the other classes that maybe didn't. This was a little bit of my own experience of life for me it was political blogging of all things which I found as a freshman in college and once I I activated then I became much better at doing things that I didn't want to do or didn't exactly see the point of in even unrelated fields.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我想聚焦在这个故事里的某一点上，就是当你提到的那个学生找到了点燃她热情的东西后，她在其他那些可能并没有点燃她的课程中也能表现得更好了。这有点像我个人的人生经历。对我来说，那件事竟然是政治博客写作（political blogging），我在大一的时候发现了它。一旦我被“激活”了，我就变得更擅长做那些我不想做或者我看不到意义的事情，甚至是在不相关的领域里。

[原文] [Speaker B]: I love that. So you started political blogging and then what happened?

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我太喜欢这个了。所以你开始写政治博客，然后发生了什么？

[原文] [Speaker A]: I think the way you what would have been the the conventional line on me from the adults who knew me was smart kid can't get it together right just can't seem to get the homework in right can't seem to do things he's not that interested in doing and can't even seem to do the things he is interested in doing in a way that fits what we want from him. I read every book in English class and I enjoyed doing the essays and I'm a good writer i think I'm willing to say that at this point in my life i think you're allowed and I still did badly on the essays um because it wasn't what they wanted for me in some way or another right and over time I just don't have that ex I mean that was the broad experience of my life that I couldn't fit what I did to what the world wanted for me right and now I'm just much better at doing that in a in in ways that are not related to my my core set of interests. I'm not trying to overextrapulate my experience it's actually important to me not to overextrapulate my experience but something I've seen you talk about is this this quality of when students find the teacher find the subject find the approach that activates them that all of a sudden the things that are not that activating to them become become easier that there is a a sort of lock in a key dynamic.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我想，那些认识我的成年人对我的一贯评价大概是：这孩子很聪明，但就是无法把事情理顺，对吧？就是没法按时交作业，没法做他不感兴趣的事，甚至连他感兴趣的事也没法按照我们需要的方式去完成。我读了英语课上的每一本书，我也喜欢写论文，而且我是一个好作家——我想我现在愿意这么说了——（Speaker B插话：我想你是够格的）——但我当时在论文上还是拿了低分，因为不管怎样那不是他们想要的东西。随着时间的推移，我只是没有那种……我的意思是，这就是我生活的大致经历，我无法让我所做的事情去适应世界对我的要求。而现在，即使在与我的核心兴趣不相关的方面，我也能更好地做到这一点了。我不想过度推演我的经历，不对我的经历进行过度推演这对我来说很重要，但我看到你也谈论过这种特质：当学生找到了那位老师、那个科目、那种能激活他们的方法时，突然之间，那些并没有那么令人兴奋的事情也变得容易了，这就像有一种“锁与钥匙（lock and key）”的动态关系。

[原文] [Speaker B]: There is and this is something we talk about around finding your spark. Kids need to find their spark and it they may have many sparks and their sparks may change but when kids find their spark... This internal drive it makes you engage more you lean in more you enjoy it more there's a virtuous upward cycle and there's lots of evidence to show that it often spills over.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 是的，这就是我们所说的“寻找你的火花（finding your spark）”。孩子们需要找到他们的火花，他们可能有很多火花，火花也可能会改变。但当孩子们找到火花时……这种内在的驱动力会让你参与得更多，投入得更多，享受得更多，这会形成一个良性的上升循环，而且有很多证据表明，这种动力通常会溢出（spill over）到其他方面。

章节 6：AI导师 vs 人类教师——情感连接与教育乌托邦

📝 本节摘要：

在本节中，Klein 扮演“AI 乐观主义者”，描绘了一个教育乌托邦：AI 能为每个孩子提供完美的个性化导师，适应任何学习风格（如将知识转化为诗歌或播客），从而在知识传授上超越人类教师。Winthrop 虽然承认 AI 在技能培养和填补教育空白上的潜力（如 Alpha Schools 的模式），但她强烈反对将教育简化为“人机交互”。她强调，学校的核心功能是建立人际关系、情感调节和社会化，这是 AI 无法替代的。双方进一步探讨了教师角色的演变——从传统的讲授者转变为管理 AI 助教团队的“管理者”或“监督者”，以应对日益复杂的课堂需求。

[原文] [Speaker A]: So so then this gets to the AI optimist case and I take the AI optimist case as something like this. It's pretty hard to do personalized learning even if you have uh examples that that you've seen work because you have one teacher it's a classroom of 20, 30 kids oftentimes but AI makes this completely different. AI gives you more tutors than there are children it allows you to have tutors who adapt to that kid's individual learning style in any way you wanted to in any way they wanted to. If this kid is a visual learner it can do visual learning if pop quizzes are helpful for them they can do pop quizzes it can turn it into a podcast they listen to if you you know are are more audio focused everything can be turned into a poem if you absorb information better through the sonnet form. That as we get better at this and as we build these systems and tune them better although they're already pretty capable here that our ability to personalize education using artificial intelligence as tutors will be like nothing ever seen before in human history. It's a complete quantum leap in educational possibility and as such it allows you to bring every child into their educational utopia whatever that is to spark them to turn them on to make them into an explorer. How do you feel about that more utopic vision?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 那么这就引出了“AI 乐观主义者”的观点，我所理解的 AI 乐观主义大概是这样的：即使你有看过成功的例子，要做到个性化学习也是相当困难的，因为只有一个老师，而教室里往往有20到30个孩子。但 AI 让这一切变得完全不同。AI 提供的导师数量比孩子还多，它允许导师以你想要的任何方式、或者孩子想要的任何方式，去适应那个孩子的个人学习风格。如果这个孩子是视觉学习者，它可以进行视觉教学；如果突击测验对他们有帮助，它可以做突击测验；如果你更偏向听觉，它可以把内容转化成播客让你听；如果你通过十四行诗的形式吸收信息效果更好，它可以把一切都变成一首诗。随着我们在这方面做得越来越好，随着我们构建并优化这些系统——尽管它们现在已经相当有能力了——利用人工智能作为导师来个性化教育的能力，将是人类历史上前所未见的。这是教育可能性的一个彻底的量子飞跃，正因如此，它允许你将每个孩子带入他们的教育乌托邦，无论那是什么，去点燃他们，去激活他们，让他们成为探索者。你对这种更乌托邦式的愿景感觉如何？

[原文] [Speaker B]: I think we're on the same page. We schools exist they're important they're important for many reasons we need to change what we do inside of them particularly because of Gen AI and we need to do it quickly um in addition to I would say you know regulating Gen AI so it isn't so massively in in students and young people's hands without being designed for that purpose. I would say those are the two big things we need to do but I don't think our goal inside schools when we're educating young people is to have a 100% personalized learning journey for every kid. What I think you're talking about is actually the ability for Gen AI to help teachers which I think is very real. I think there's a big difference and we need to make a big distinction between AI supporting educators in doing what they do versus going direct to young people.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我想我们的看法是一致的。学校是存在的，它们很重要，出于很多原因它们都很重要。我们需要改变我们在学校内部所做的事情，特别是因为生成式 AI 的出现，而且我们需要迅速行动。除此之外，我想说还要监管生成式 AI，以免在没有针对性设计的情况下，让它如此大规模地落入学生和年轻人手中。我认为这是我们需要做的两件大事。但我不认为我们在学校教育年轻人时的目标是为每个孩子提供 100% 的个性化学习旅程。我认为你所谈论的实际上是生成式 AI 帮助教师的能力，我认为这是非常真实的。我认为这其中有很大的区别，我们需要在“AI 支持教育者工作”与“AI 直接面向年轻人”之间做出重大区分。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Well well let me push you on this for a second before you go here because if I'm taking the position of the AI optimist what I'd say is no I'm not saying that. I'm saying the AI will be better than the teachers. Better at what? If we are saying that AI is going to be better than the median for many people at many kinds of work why would we not assume that this system we will be able to build in six years given how fast these things are developing won't per kid be better than the teacher? I am not saying I believe this but I want to make you argue. No you're pushing on it.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 嗯，在你继续之前，让我在这里反驳你一下。因为如果我站在 AI 乐观主义者的立场上，我会说：不，我不是那个意思。我是说 AI 会比老师更好。“在什么方面更好？”如果我们说 AI 在许多这类工作中将会比中位数水平的人做得更好，考虑到这些事物发展的速度，我们为什么不假设我们在六年内能够构建的这个系统，对每个孩子来说不会比老师更好呢？我并不是说我相信这一点，但我想让你来辩驳。不，你在逼问这个问题。

[原文] [Speaker B]: I get the AI optimist but the question is better at what? So teachers do many many things. Kids learn in relationships with other humans we've evolved to do that. I do not think that we will go away from that or we may go away and then we'll be like "Oh my god that was a huge mistake" and 10 years later go back. So there's a question around skill development and knowledge transmission that is one thing a teacher does and I think that's what you're talking about. That is an area where I think technology can be good can be really good. So and and actually we see it even without generative AI there's adaptive learning software you know that helps kids really you know learn to read um which is incredibly helpful especially if you have access gaps you don't have good teachers you have large classes you have substitute teachers that aren't trained on on how to teach kids to read. So that complemented with things that motivate kids get them excited and see the relevance of what they're doing which is often in person could be a great could be a great thing to do inside the classroom. We see private schools doing that there's a a group of schools that I have not visited and I don't know um up close but Alpha Schools are doing this. They do and they've been doing it for 10 years actually pre-Gen AI. They do a couple couple hours of sort of adaptive learning on key academic subjects and then the rest of the time um kids are working together to build bridges or learn about financial literacy or play sports or identify a passion that they want to go learn about in their community. It's together it's alone. What we don't want to do is bring AI in and have every kid sitting in front of a AI tutor alone at their desk for eight hours a day that that's not the future that is gonna help our kids.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我理解 AI 乐观主义者，但问题是“在什么方面更好”？老师做很多很多事情。孩子们是在与其他人类的关系中学习的，我们进化成这样。我不认为我们会背离这一点，或者我们要么背离了，然后我们会惊呼“天哪，那是个巨大的错误”，十年后再改回来。所以，关于技能发展和知识传授，这是老师做的一件事，我认为这也是你所指的。在这一领域，我认为技术可以做得很好，真的很好。实际上，即使没有生成式 AI 我们也看到了这一点，有一些自适应学习软件可以帮助孩子真正学会阅读，这非常有帮助，特别是在存在资源差距（access gaps）的情况下——你没有好老师，班级很大，或者代课老师没有受过教孩子阅读的训练。所以，如果能把这一点与那些激励孩子、让他们兴奋、让他们看到所做之事的关联性的东西（这些通常是面对面的）结合起来，在课堂里可能会是一件很棒的事情。我们看到私立学校正在这样做，有一组学校我还没去过，不太了解细节，但 Alpha Schools 正在这样做。实际上他们在生成式 AI 之前就已经做了十年了。他们会花几个小时在关键学科上进行某种自适应学习，然后剩下的时间孩子们一起造桥、学习金融知识、做运动，或者去社区里寻找他们想学的热情所在。这是集体与独自的结合。我们不想做的是引入 AI，然后让每个孩子每天八小时独自坐在桌前面对 AI 导师，那不是能帮助我们孩子的未来。

[原文] [Speaker A]: I guess another way you might think about it is that this changes the job of the teacher quite substantially. Absolutely. So and I will say I think I don't believe what I'm about to say so I don't want to get yelled at by everybody for for every take. I'm not talking to you I'm talking to my beloved audience um my beloved audience. Fair enough. Uh but one thing I've observed is that it seems to me that where AI is going to push is towards the skills of the manager the editor the supervisor the fact checker in a way and often away from the skills which are right now more numerous and needed in more numerous quantities of the worker of the writer of in this case maybe the teacher. So if you think about that that world that you were just describing as the one we don't want a second ago where you have 25 kids in a class they're all staring at a screen they're all working with an individualized AI tutor right you could imagine a world if you think about every one of those screens as a junior teacher as an individual tutor that there's some master teacher in the room who the kids can go talk to who can like be pulled in to sort of oversee the learning to reshape what's happening. There is testing there there there are things that are trying to help us evaluate how the kids are doing but the teacher who's already managing a classroom of students is now also in a way managing a classroom of helpers of tutors. I think that would be the kind of vision you would hear from the more AI pilled among us right.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我想另一种思考方式是，这会相当实质性地改变教师的工作。绝对的。我想声明，我不相信我接下来要说的话，所以我不想因为每一个观点都被大家吼。我不是在跟你说，我是跟我的亲爱的听众说——我亲爱的听众。（Speaker B: 很公平。）但我观察到的一点是，AI 似乎正在推动这种技能需求：在这某种程度上是管理者（manager）、编辑（editor）、监督者（supervisor）、事实核查者（fact checker）的技能，而往往远离那些目前数量更多、需求量更大的技能，比如工人、作家，或者在这个语境下的老师。所以如果你想象一下你刚才描述的那个我们不想要的世界——班上有25个孩子，他们都盯着屏幕，都在和一个个性化的 AI 导师一起工作，对吧？你可以想象这样一个世界：如果你把每一个屏幕都看作是一个初级教师、一个私人导师，那么房间里有一位资深教师（master teacher），孩子们可以去和他交谈，他可以被拉进来监督学习，重塑正在发生的事情。会有测试，会有各种东西试图帮助我们评估孩子们的表现，但这位原本就在管理一教室学生的老师，现在在某种程度上也在管理一教室的帮手、导师。我想这就是你会从我们中间那些更信奉 AI（AI pilled）的人那里听到的愿景，对吧？

[原文] [Speaker B]: The role of the teacher in traditional public schools is damn near impossible honestly. They have to master a certain subject they have to get kids to grade level so if you have and usually we have a wide difference of grade levels in school between three and four different grade levels so they've got to differentiate and figure out who needs what. The bored kid who's the passenger the struggling kid who's also the passenger both of them silent and quiet and you don't even know um and they've got to manage classroom dynamics like kids have to not you know hit each other or disrupt each other or ruin the furniture um and they have to increasingly be social workers kids are not doing well lots of mental health problems they've got to spot that they've got to help it they also have to be relationship managers they've got to work with parents etc. So it's very hard for one teacher to do this all. Absolutely I think the wave of the future is a different model where you have multiple people and one of those could be an AI tutor helping support our kids growth and development. The interaction with AI can help with skill development knowledge acquisition but that is one slice of what happens in a classroom and it is one slice of what it really means for kids to be educated. Kids are learning all sorts of things in a classroom they're learning how to self-regulate emotions in a group they're learning how to understand different perspectives from kids who are different from themselves they're they're learning you know how to ask for help when they need it there's a whole bunch of things that kids are kids are learning that is much more person-to-person that we want to maintain I would argue.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 老实说，传统公立学校里的教师角色简直是不可能完成的任务。他们必须精通某一门学科，必须让孩子达到年级水平——通常我们在学校里看到的年级水平差异很大，可能有三到四个不同的年级水平——所以他们必须进行差异化教学，弄清楚谁需要什么。无聊的孩子是“乘客”，挣扎的孩子也是“乘客”，他们都沉默安静，你甚至都不知道。而且他们还得管理课堂动态，比如孩子们不能打架、互相干扰或破坏家具。而且他们越来越需要充当社会工作者，孩子们状况不佳，有很多心理健康问题，老师得发现并提供帮助。他们还得是关系管理者，得和家长打交道等等。所以让一个老师做所有这些事是非常难的。绝对的，我认为未来的浪潮是一种不同的模式，你有很多人手，其中之一可能是一个 AI 导师，帮助支持我们孩子的成长和发展。与 AI 的互动可以帮助技能发展和知识获取，但这只是课堂里发生的事情的一个切片，也是孩子受教育真正含义的一个切片。孩子们在课堂上学习各种各样的东西：他们在学习如何在群体中自我调节情绪，学习如何理解与自己不同的孩子的不同观点，学习在需要时如何寻求帮助。有一大堆孩子们正在学习的东西是更加人与人之间（person-to-person）的，我认为这是我们想要保留的。

章节 7：前车之鉴——屏幕成瘾、错失恐惧（FOMO）与公平性

📝 本节摘要：

Klein 回顾了过去十年将屏幕引入课堂的“灾难性实验”，认为这导致了学生注意力的碎片化。他担心现在的学校在还没搞懂 AI 之前就急于引入，重蹈覆辙。Winthrop 强烈赞同，指出教育者和家长普遍存在“错失恐惧症（FOMO）”，甚至出现了一些荒谬的应用场景（如用 APP 辅助家庭餐桌对话）。两人还深入探讨了技术带来的不平等：私立学校能灵活地“断网”回归传统，而公立学校往往因害怕落后而盲目跟风。Winthrop 强调，除非有明确的问题需要解决，否则不应仅仅因为焦虑而引入 AI。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Here's where I actually am: I think we've just been going through a catastrophic experiment with screens and children and right now I think we are starting to figure out that this was a bad idea. And schools are banning phones my sense is that they are not relying very much on laptops and iPads there's a big vogue for a while of every kid gets their own uh uh laptop or tablet I think that's beginning to go away if I'm reading the the tea leaves of this right. And so I feel a bit better about that as a parent of young kids I really feel badly for the parents whose kids have been navigating this over the past 10 or 15 10 years let's call it.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 这就是我的真实想法：我认为我们刚刚经历了一场关于屏幕和儿童的灾难性实验，现在我们才开始意识到这是个坏主意。学校正在禁止手机，我的感觉是他们不再那么依赖笔记本电脑和 iPad 了。有一段时间很流行每个孩子都发一台笔记本电脑或平板电脑，如果我没看错趋势的话，这种风气正在消退。作为年幼孩子的父母，我对这一点感到稍微宽慰些。但我真的为那些过去10年或15年里不得不应对这种情况的父母感到难过。

[原文] [Speaker A]: And right now I see AI coming and I don't think we understand it at all I don't think we understand how to teach with it I don't think the studies we're doing right now are good studies yet there are too many other effects we're not going to be measuring. I think there's the the sort of narrow thing that a program does and then what it does for a kid to be staring at a screen all the time in a a deeper way. I believe human beings are embodied and if you made me choose between sending my kids to a school that has no screens at all and one that is trying the latest in AI technology I would send them to school with no screens at all in a second. But we're going to be working through this somehow and what scares me putting aside what world my kids graduate into is them moving into schools at the exact time that they don't know what the hell to do with this technology and they're about to try a lot of things that don't work and probably try it badly. And I wonder as somebody who's tracked this what you think the lessons of what I consider at least the screens and phones debacle of the 2010s or the 2000s have been.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 现在我看到 AI 来了，我觉得我们根本不了解它，我觉得我们不知道如何用它来教学，我不认为我们现在做的研究是好的研究，因为有太多其他的效应我们无法衡量。我认为存在一种区别：程序能做的狭窄事情，以及让孩子一直盯着屏幕在更深层次上对他们造成的影响。我相信人类是具身（embodied）的，如果你让我选择是把孩子送去一所完全没有屏幕的学校，还是送去一所正在尝试最新 AI 技术的学校，我会毫不犹豫地把他们送去完全没有屏幕的学校。但我们要以某种方式度过难关。抛开我的孩子毕业后会进入什么样的世界不谈，真正让我害怕的是，他们进入学校的时间点，正好是学校根本不知道该拿这项技术怎么办的时候，学校正准备尝试很多行不通的东西，而且可能做得一团糟。作为一个长期追踪这一领域的人，我想知道你认为从2010年代或2000年代的屏幕和手机灾难——至少我是这么认为的——中应该吸取什么教训？

[原文] [Speaker B]: I agree with you 100% it was a massive uncontrolled experiment and our kids were the guinea pigs. We just had a wait and see approach we cannot take a wait and see approach again and I think that there's lots of lessons. I would say first off do not use generative AI unless you really know what you're using it for. There is a a a real sense of FOMO among educators parents young people even that there's this thing happening out there and I I should use it because it's the newest thing. I saw that with uh groups who were working on student well-being and they um had done teacher training around um well-being curriculum for teachers and they said "Oh we need to train parents how to do it." So their idea was let's use Gen AI it'll be great because parents also you know do need to reinforce well-being messages that teachers are giving in school which is true and what we'll do is we'll create an app. And so this is what they had suggested Ezra: imagine you sitting down around the dinner table you pull up your phone and you have an app and your kids have their phone and you say "Okay how are you feeling today?" And um you know you're looking at your phone and they're telling you how they feel and then you click through and ask you know "Why why are you feeling that way?" Like mediated through a phone it's crazy it's crazy like we've lost our mind like that we need AI to talk to our kids. So you know if you don't need if there's not a real problem you're trying to solve don't use it is number one.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我百分之百同意你的观点，那是一场大规模的失控实验，而我们的孩子就是小白鼠。我们当时只是采取了观望态度，我们不能再采取观望态度了，我认为有很多教训。我想说的第一点是，除非你真的知道你要用生成式 AI 做什么，否则不要使用它。在教育者、家长甚至年轻人中间，确实存在一种真正的“错失恐惧症（FOMO）”，觉得外面正在发生这件大事，我应该使用它，因为它是最新的东西。我看到过致力于学生福祉的团体，他们已经针对教师进行了关于福祉课程的培训，然后他们说：“噢，我们需要培训家长如何做。” 于是他们的想法是：让我们使用生成式 AI 吧，这会很棒，因为家长确实也需要强化老师在学校传达的福祉信息——这倒是真的——我们要做的就是开发一个应用程序。Ezra，这就是他们的建议：想象一下，你坐在餐桌旁，你掏出手机打开一个 APP，你的孩子也拿着他们的手机，然后你说：“好吧，你今天感觉怎么样？” 你知道，你盯着手机，他们告诉你他们的感受，然后你点击屏幕问：“你知道，为什么你会那样感觉？” 这种通过手机作为中介的交流简直是疯了，简直是疯了，就像我们失去了理智一样，竟然需要 AI 来帮我们要跟孩子说话。所以，如果你不需要，如果你没有试图解决真正的难题，那就别用它，这是第一条。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Well one thing that worries me is the way in which this might maybe already has been widen the inequality between parents who can pay for private schools and parents who can't. And what I mean by that is that private schools can just adapt more quickly they are not dealing with they don't have to go through legislatures and have the boards and they they're they're just a little bit more independent they can take the screens out they can put them in they can limit what comes in. Whereas the public school systems tend to be somewhat more slow moving. Um I just knew living out in the Bay Area a lot of tech people who were paying money to send their kids to private schools that had banned the products they made starting many years ago and the rest of everybody were sending them to public schools that had not done that. And when things are very very fast moving being able to be fast moving is really important. So somebody who cares a lot about public education what should the orientation of the public schools be how do they sort of not seem to parents who think there's something that their kids should be getting out of this don't their kids need to know how to use AI um so they're going to need to attract parents on on that level but also how do they not end up flatfooted if this is turning out to be a disaster?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 嗯，让我担心的一件事是，这可能会——也许已经——扩大了那些能支付得起私立学校费用的父母和不能支付的父母之间的不平等。我的意思是，私立学校适应得更快，他们不需要通过立法机构，也不需要经过教育委员会，他们更独立一点，他们可以把屏幕拿走，也可以把它们放进来，他们可以限制进入校园的内容。而公立学校系统往往行动比较缓慢。我知道住在湾区（Bay Area）的很多科技界人士，他们花钱把孩子送到私立学校，那些学校早在多年前就开始禁止使用这些科技人士自己制造的产品，而其他所有人都把孩子送到没有这么做的公立学校。当事物发展非常非常快时，能够快速反应是非常重要的。所以，作为一个非常关心公立教育的人，公立学校的导向应该是什么？他们如何既不让那些认为孩子应该从中获益的家长失望——比如孩子难道不需要知道如何使用 AI 吗？所以他们需要在那个层面上吸引家长——同时如果这结果证明是一场灾难，他们又如何避免措手不及？

[原文] [Speaker B]: This is a really tricky question and you you point on something that is a real issue which is around the deep equity issues that have already emerged. So think about the schools that ban AI for a kid who has no access to AI at home versus a kid who goes home and has full access to all the AI tools that right there is a huge cleavage in our country. It also um there's a huge equity gap in terms of language large language models work off of language that is written down there's a lot of languages that aren't written down that much they have very little written down and so there you're seeing a global gap across the globe um between sort of African and indigenous languages or um and communities versus English speaking or other large languages so there is a equity is a is a huge one. Your question about sort of public versus private I would say to public education systems do do not have FOMO because that is what the gut instinct is when a new technology comes I'm missing out I have a fear of missing out and I need to adopt it and I I see this so don't have FOMO don't use it unless it's a real problem you want to solve.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 这是一个非常棘手的问题，你指出的确实是一个真正的问题，即已经出现的深刻的公平性问题。试想一下，对于那些在家里无法接触到 AI 的孩子，如果学校禁止了 AI，对比那些回家后可以完全使用所有 AI 工具的孩子，这在我国就形成了一个巨大的裂痕。此外，在语言方面也存在巨大的公平性差距。大型语言模型是基于书面语言工作的，有很多语言并没有被大量记录下来，它们的书面资料很少。所以你在全球范围内看到了这种差距，比如非洲语言和土著语言社区与英语或其他大语种社区之间的差距。所以公平性是一个巨大的问题。关于你提到的公立与私立学校的问题，我会对公立教育系统说：不要有 FOMO（错失恐惧症）。因为当新技术出现时，直觉反应就是“我错过了，我害怕错过，我需要采用它”，我看到了这一点。所以，不要有 FOMO，除非有一个你想解决的真正问题，否则不要使用它。

章节 8：AI的实效性——填补空白与“最佳可用人类”理论

📝 本节摘要：

本节探讨了 AI 在教育公平性上的另一面——填补资源缺口。Winthrop 引用了尼日利亚和马拉维的案例，证明在缺乏师资的情况下，AI 导师能显著提升学生的学习成果；她还强调了 AI 对阅读障碍等神经多样性儿童的巨大帮助。Klein 引入了 AI 专家 Ethan Mollick 的“最佳可用人类（Best Available Human）”理论：AI 也许不如顶尖的人类专家（如《纽约时报》编辑），但对于大多数无法获得顶级资源的人来说，AI 是当下能找到的最好帮手。此外，AI 提供了一个“无尴尬”的提问环境，解决了学生在课堂上因怕显得愚蠢而不敢提问的痛点。Winthrop 对此表示认同，但强调必须对商业技术设置“护栏”，防止商业动机损害学生利益。

[原文] [Speaker A]: I guess then there to go back to your equity point there's the argument from the opposite direction in equity which is that it is the kids with the least access to all kinds of enrichment materials to to tutors I mean we we know what rich kids in urban centers get and then what you're getting I mean you know in parts of America that are rural and don't yet have broadband or don't have wide access to broadband to say nothing of you know a kid in Nigeria um in rural Nigeria that that is where at least a well structured Gen AI tutor might be able to make a difference really fast. You've talked a bit about a study uh in Nigeria that I never quite know how to how seriously to take these studies yet um but but why don't you say what it what it did and what it found?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我想回到你关于公平性的观点上，其实从反方向来看，公平性上也有另一种论调：正是那些最缺乏各种丰富教材、缺乏导师的孩子——我是说，我们知道城市中心的富家子弟能得到什么，再看看美国部分农村地区，那里甚至还没有宽带，或者没有广泛的宽带接入；更不用说尼日利亚农村的孩子了——在那些地方，至少一个结构良好的生成式 AI 导师可能会非常迅速地带来改变。你提到过一项在尼日利亚的研究，我一直不太确定该多严肃地看待这些研究，不过你何不讲讲它做了什么以及发现了什么？

[原文] [Speaker B]: So I think that AI has real potential for very specific use cases particularly around access gaps and in Nigeria what was done was after school twice a week um an AI tutor helped kids learn English and it was for 6 weeks which is not long it was June July I think it was a randomized control trial we're still waiting for all the evidence to come through but three standard deviations which is pretty good equivalent to maybe two years of average sort of English learning. And you know we see that difference with other technologies too it doesn't have to be Gen AI it can be rule-based AI it could be predictive AI we've seen sort of similar benefits for example in Malawi teaching literacy and numeracy to kids with offline tablets um where teachers have maybe 80 to 100 kids in a class and each kid is having sort of a personalized adaptive learning experience that is hugely beneficial as well. So that's one use case.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我认为 AI 在非常特定的用例中具有真正的潜力，特别是在解决获取差距（access gaps）方面。在尼日利亚所做的是，在放学后，每周两次，通过 AI 导师帮助孩子们学习英语。这持续了6周，并不长，大概是六七月份。我想那是一个随机对照试验，我们还在等待所有的证据出来，但结果显示提高了三个标准差，这相当不错，大概相当于平均两年的英语学习水平。而且我们在其他技术上也看到了这种差异，不一定非得是生成式 AI，它可以是基于规则的 AI，或者是预测性 AI。我们在马拉维也看到了类似的益处，例如用离线平板电脑教孩子读写和算术，那里的老师可能班上有80到100个孩子，而每个孩子都能获得某种个性化的自适应学习体验，这也是非常有益的。所以这是一个用例。

[原文] [Speaker B]: Another use case that I think is really great is um neurodivergent kids super helpful um there's all sorts of kids um that have different learning differences that struggle in school don't have access to the specialists that they need that would benefit greatly from you know being in a classroom where they could have a little assistant to help them navigate. Um we I see my my youngest son has dyslexia and they the sort of read and write text to speech speech to text has been game changing for him.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我认为另一个非常棒的用例是针对神经多样性（neurodivergent）的孩子，这超级有帮助。有各种各样的孩子存在不同的学习差异，他们在学校里很挣扎，无法获得他们需要的专家支持，如果他们在课堂上能有一个小助手帮助他们导航，他们将受益匪浅。我看到我有阅读障碍（dyslexia）的小儿子，那种读写辅助、文字转语音、语音转文字的功能对他来说简直是颠覆性的改变。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Ethan Mollick who's a an AI expert he's got this idea that has been influential for me about the "best available human". Is AI better for you in a certain purpose not than the best human but the best human available to you at a given moment? Exactly. So yes having a professional excellent editor like my editor at the New York Times would be better but most people don't have that available so AI is a better than the best available editor to them. There's a lot more demand for therapy than there are therapists so often times AI is you know practically where it's going even for me sometimes it's a better therapist than the best available therapist I have uh available at a given moment. It certainly seems plausibly true in education too. Uh there's all kinds of times when you are confused by what you are reading what you are learning yep and you're in a big class and it's embarrassing to ask 55 questions or there's even time to ask 55 questions and you don't want to seem stupid but if you could contain the system somehow and that seems more plausible here where there's a fundamental prompt at the core of them right then you know if we got that right uh it it you know in a lot of these use cases it could be really...

[译文] [Speaker A]: Ethan Mollick 是一位 AI 专家，他有一个观点对我影响很大，那就是关于“最佳可用人类（best available human）”。AI 在某个特定用途上是否对你更好？不是比最好的人类更好，而是比你在那个时刻“能找到的”最好的人类更好？（Speaker B: 正是。）所以，是的，拥有像我在《纽约时报》那样专业、优秀的编辑当然更好，但大多数人没有这种资源，所以对他们来说，AI 比他们能找到的最好编辑要好。对治疗的需求远多于治疗师的数量，所以很多时候 AI 实际上是发展的方向，甚至对我来说，有时它比我在特定时刻能找到的最好治疗师还要好。在教育领域，这似乎也确实讲得通。很多时候你会对你读的东西、学的东西感到困惑（Speaker B: 是的），而你在一个大班级里，问55个问题会很尴尬，或者根本没有时间问55个问题，你也不想显得自己很蠢。但如果你能以某种方式“控制（contain）”这个系统——在这里这似乎更可行，因为它们的核心有一个基础提示词——那么如果你做对了，在很多这类用例中，它真的可能……

[原文] [Speaker B]: Absolutely and the key is what you said contain the system. We can't sort of just bring commercial tech into our schools and hope it will solve these problems it has to have guard rails we have to make sure that the data that's it's being trained on is legit and not going to create harmful prompts for kids. We've seen terrible things with commercial um AI companions with young young people you know developing relationships and being you know really manipulated emotionally but you can put guard rails it's totally possible um it's just where who what the frankly it gets back to the the incentives it gets back to the business model um and which is where you you know regulation and government could and should step in um so yes if contained is the question.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 绝对的，关键就在于你所说的“控制系统”。我们不能就这样把商业技术引入学校并希望它能解决这些问题，它必须有护栏。我们必须确保它训练所用的数据是合法的，并且不会为孩子生成有害的提示。我们已经看到商业 AI 伴侣在年轻人身上发生的糟糕事情，你知道，建立关系并被情感操控。但你可以设置护栏，这完全是可能的。这坦率地说又回到了激励机制、回到了商业模式的问题上，这也是监管和政府能够且应该介入的地方。所以是的，前提是如果能被“控制”的话。

章节 9：回归人性——深度注意力、能动性与口语能力

📝 本节摘要：

在访谈的最后部分，Klein 提出了一种反向思考：学校是否不应追求与机器融合，而是应该回归“古典教育”，成为培养深度注意力与人类特有能力的“无屏幕绿洲”？Winthrop 对此表示赞同，强调了反思与意义构建的重要性。面对未来教育评价体系的失效（单纯看成绩已不足够），Winthrop 建议家长关注孩子是否具备“能动性（Agency）”——即反思和追求新知的能力，以及在 AI 自动化认知任务后将变得愈发珍贵的“口语能力（Oracy）”。最后，嘉宾推荐了三本关于教育民主、对抗技术成瘾及非暴力变革的书籍。

[原文] [Speaker A]: So then let me ask you about the other impulse somebody might have which is not that you're going to be replaced by somebody who knows how to use AI but that in a world where we have AIs the most important thing for human beings to be is as human as possible. And that what we need to do is return to more classical education that what we need to do is be reading the great books developing the attentional faculties that a lot of data and anecdata suggest that even very elite students are losing to read a long book and think about it to write a long essay to be educated in the way that was considered high civilization education 70 years ago. And you might get at a St John's or a U of Chicago or certain private schools today but actually what we should do is retreat somewhat school should be a place not where we learn how to partner with machines because the rest of society's going to tell you how to do that school should be a place where we develop specifically human faculties such that we are capable and flexible and attentive in moving through a world that we just cannot predict.

[译文] [Speaker A]: 那么让我问问你关于另一种可能存在的冲动，这并不是说你会被懂得使用 AI 的人取代，而是在一个拥有 AI 的世界里，人类最重要的事情是尽可能地像个人类。我们需要做的是回归更古典的教育，我们需要读经典名著，培养注意力——大量数据和轶事证据表明，即使是精英学生也正在丧失这种能力——去读一本长书并进行思考，去写长篇论文，接受那种在70年前被视为高度文明教育的熏陶。你今天可能在圣约翰学院（St. John's）或芝加哥大学（U of Chicago）或某些私立学校能看到这种教育，但实际上我们应该稍微后退一步：学校不应该是一个学习如何与机器合作的地方，因为社会其他部分会教你如何做；学校应该是一个我们要专门发展人类能力的地方，这样我们才能在无法预测的世界中具备能力、灵活性和专注力。

[原文] [Speaker B]: We 100% want kids to have the capacity for deep attention. And you're thinking about your own kiddos who are young and I'm thinking about my own teenagers who are 13 and 16 and I see the undermining of attentive faculties from when my 16-year-old got his phone. For a long time he didn't want a phone because I'd been droning on and on for years cuz he has me as a mother about addiction and opportunity costs and just that you know it's okay to enjoy it a little bit but you know can't sacrifice sleep and physical exercise and in-person you know communication. And then he did get his phone and he struggles with it and he says "Mom this is really hard." Like it's eroding his ability to do his homework or to follow follow something he wants to do. The only thing that it doesn't seem to distract him from doing is playing the piano because he loves playing the piano. So anything that we can do to actually ensure young people are developing the muscle—and it's not just attention, attention is the entry point that's the doorway that gets you through—it's actually reflection and meaning making which is what you get from deep reading and reading full books which a lot of young people struggle to do today. You also can get it from other means you could get it from long socratic dialogues in community with diverse people over time but it has to be an experience where you reflect you think about meaning you think about different perspectives and it changes how you see the world.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我们百分之百希望孩子拥有深度关注的能力。你在想你年幼的孩子，我在想我13岁和16岁的青少年孩子，我看到了自从我16岁的儿子有了手机后，他的注意力是如何被削弱的。很长一段时间他不想要手机，因为我作为母亲多年来一直唠叨关于成瘾和机会成本的问题，告诉他可以稍微享受一下，但不能牺牲睡眠、体育锻炼和面对面的交流。后来他确实有了手机，但他对此很挣扎，他说：“妈妈，这真的很难。” 就像手机在侵蚀他做作业的能力，或者去追随他想做的事情的能力。似乎唯一没被手机干扰的事情就是弹钢琴，因为他热爱弹钢琴。所以，任何我们能做的事情，只要能确保年轻人锻炼这种肌肉——不仅仅是注意力，注意力是入口，是让你通过的门槛——实际上是反思（reflection）和意义构建（meaning making），这正是你从深度阅读和读完整本书中获得的，而今天很多年轻人都难以做到这一点。你也可以通过其他方式获得这种能力，比如在社区中与不同的人进行长期的苏格拉底式对话，但这必须是一种让你反思、思考意义、思考不同视角的体验，并且它会改变你看世界的方式。

[原文] [Speaker A]: But but what do you think about this idea that school should be a rare screen-free oasis in a child's life? I've sometimes imagined a school that you know I could send my kids to... where what they do is they go in and you know somebody is watching them and helping them read books and think through math and there's long periods... but that the idea that maybe one space in their life would just be a place that is trying to encourage in them that capacity for meaning for deep attention for deep contemplation it seems to me to be more valuable than it seems to be to other people to just have a teacher sit there and watch kids read for an hour and a half at a time and then there's a discussion than to do a lot of what we do in school. And so this idea of schools as as explicitly counter to the trends of the moment because they need to develop things that the moment will not naturally develop how do you think about that?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 但是，你怎么看这个想法：学校应该成为孩子生活中稀有的“无屏幕绿洲”？我有时会想象一所我可以把孩子送去的学校……在那里他们进去，有人照看他们，帮助他们读书，思考数学，有很长的时间段……但我认为，如果在他们生活中能有一个空间，专门试图鼓励他们培养这种寻求意义、深度关注、深度沉思的能力，这对我来说似乎比对其他人来说更有价值——哪怕只是让老师坐在那里看着孩子们读一个半小时的书，然后进行讨论——这比我们在学校里做的很多事情都要有价值。所以，这种把学校明确视为“反潮流”场所的想法——因为它们需要培养那些当下的潮流自然无法培养的东西——你怎么看？

[原文] [Speaker B]: I think that's right. I actually think if I had to choose for my own kids um and I do we would have you know a school that has no no phones for all the reasons we know and Jonathan Haidt has done a great job on on you know sort of catalyzing that movement here in the US and bringing it from across the globe to our schools. I think today we should have cell phone bans in school bell to bell don't don't have it at recess because that's where you start interacting and playing with kids. And uh I think we should um make school a place where kids can actually interact with each other have develop human-to-human socialization capacities because there is massive commercial tech the minute they leave school that is vying for their attention and coming for them. And make sure make sure to do some high-quality AI literacy. AI literacy is way way different than using AI to learn. AI literacy is what is this, how was it made, what are the risks, what are the benefits, and let's talk about what how our ethics around this new tool and and how to incorporate it into our lives you know with an in with an adult instructor talking about how it works and what it is. I think that would that's AI literacy and that's important.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我认为这是对的。实际上，如果我要为我自己的孩子做选择——我确实这么做了——我们会选择一所没有手机的学校，原因我们都知道。Jonathan Haidt 在这方面做得很好，他在美国催化了这场运动，并将其从全球带到了我们的学校。我认为今天我们应该在学校实行“从铃声到铃声（bell to bell）”的手机禁令，课间休息时也不要用，因为那是你开始与孩子互动和玩耍的时候。而且我认为我们应该让学校成为孩子们真正能够相互互动、发展人与人之间社交能力的地方，因为只要他们一离开学校，就会有海量的商业技术在争夺他们的注意力，向他们袭来。并且要确保，一定要进行一些高质量的 AI 素养（AI literacy）教育。AI 素养与“使用 AI 学习”完全不同。AI 素养是指：这是什么？它是怎么制造出来的？有什么风险？有什么好处？我们要讨论围绕这个新工具的伦理道德，以及如何将它融入我们的生活——要有成年指导员讲解它的工作原理和本质。我认为那才是 AI 素养，那很重要。

[原文] [Speaker A]: So we can't really predict the shape of society in 15 or 20 years. What then should a parent be trying to watch in the meantime? How do you think about whether or not your kid's education is going well if you're a little suspicious that the grades designed for and maybe even not that well designed for the society we have had are not going to correlate all that well to the society we will have?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我们真的无法预测15或20年后社会的形态。那么在此期间，家长应该试着关注什么呢？如果你有点怀疑那些为过去的社会设计的成绩（也许设计得并不那么好）与我们将要面临的社会并没有那么好的相关性，你怎么判断你孩子的教育是否进行得顺利？

[原文] [Speaker B]: So what I would think about is a couple of things. One, getting back to the research I've done with my co-author and colleague Jenny Anderson, grades don't show you how much kids are engaged. Schools are not designed to give kids agency schools are designed to help kids comply. What you really want is some feedback loops that are beyond just grades and behavior. Like to know is my kid developing agency over their learning? And what I mean by that is are they able to reflect and think about things they're learning in a way that they can identify what's interesting and they can have the skills to pursue new information. That right there is I think going to be the core skill it is the core skill for learning new things in an uncertain world. In addition to that I would say make sure kids are learning to interact with other human beings. Any school that has them working with peers but even connecting with community members... our social networks are getting smaller there's going to be a premium on human-to-human interaction as more and more um skills get automated. And then the last thing which may seem silly to you but I increasingly keep thinking about is think about uh speaking listening and speaking as the missing piece of literacy alongside reading and writing. We are going to need to show our merit and our sort of credentials more and more through what the British call oracy skills. You know I I think we've lost the art of listening and speaking.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 我会考虑几件事。第一，回到我和我的合著者兼同事 Jenny Anderson 所做的研究，成绩并不能显示孩子们的参与度有多少。学校不是为了赋予孩子能动性（agency）而设计的，学校是为了帮助孩子服从而设计的。你真正需要的是一些超越成绩和行为的反馈循环。比如了解我的孩子是否正在对他们的学习发展出能动性？我的意思是，他们是否能够反思并思考他们正在学习的东西，从而识别出什么是有趣的，并且拥有追求新信息的技能。我认为这将会是核心技能，是在不确定的世界中学习新事物的核心技能。除此之外，我要说，确保孩子们正在学习与其他人类互动。任何让他们与同龄人合作，甚至与社区成员建立联系的学校……我们的社交网络正在变小，随着越来越多的技能被自动化，人与人之间的互动将会变得更加珍贵。最后一点，也许你会觉得傻，但我越来越觉得，要把说话——倾听和说话——看作是继阅读和写作之后缺失的那一块素养。我们将越来越需要通过英国人所说的口语技能（oracy skills）来展示我们的价值和资历。你知道，我认为我们已经丢失了倾听和说话的艺术。

[原文] [Speaker A]: I think that's a good place to end. Thank you for speaking and listening with me. Always. Our final question: what are three books you'd recommend to the audience?

[译文] [Speaker A]: 我想这是个结束的好地方。谢谢你与我交谈和倾听。一如既往，我们最后的问题：你会向听众推荐哪三本书？

[原文] [Speaker B]: So the first one is Democracy and Education by John Dewey which is over 100 years old. He has some great discussions around the importance of reflection not just ingesting knowledge but reflecting on it making meaning figuring out how to do things with it. That's an oldie but goodie. The second book is by Gaia Bernstein it's called Unwired: Gaining Control Over Addictive Technologies. She gives a really good sort of overview particularly around kids and young people of the incentives that commercial tech has and how we need to sort of what are some strategies for resisting that and getting to a a better place. And the last one it's called Blueprint for Revolution... by Srdja Popovic... to me this book is sort of like the updated version of non-violent activism he really gets media he really gets social media and I just think it's incredibly relevant today.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 第一本是 John Dewey 的《民主主义与教育》（Democracy and Education），这本书已经有100多年的历史了。关于反思的重要性——不仅仅是摄入知识，而是反思知识、构建意义、弄清楚如何运用它——他有一些很棒的讨论。这是一本老书但很经典。第二本书是 Gaia Bernstein 写的，叫《断网：掌控成瘾技术》（Unwired: Gaining Control Over Addictive Technologies）。她给出了一个很好的概述，特别是关于儿童和年轻人，分析了商业科技的激励机制，以及我们需要什么策略来抵制它并达到更好的状态。最后一本叫《革命蓝图》（Blueprint for Revolution）……作者是 Srdja Popovic……对我来说，这本书有点像非暴力行动主义的升级版，他真的懂媒体，真的懂社交媒体，我觉得这本书在今天极其相关。

[原文] [Speaker A]: Rebecca Winthrop thank you very much.

[译文] [Speaker A]: Rebecca Winthrop，非常感谢你。

[原文] [Speaker B]: Thank you.

[译文] [Speaker B]: 谢谢。