This week: kids talk about AI in their own words, a Stanford researcher asks teens why they turn to chatbots for emotional support, and a principal and a student review OpenAI’s new ChatGPT for Teens side by side.
🔍 This week I’ve been thinking about…
It’s the start of a new school year, and the AI discourse keeps on coming. At CAISE, we’re in the exciting position of being able to place all this discourse in the frame of the data we’re starting to gather too. The articles below (some of which are paywalled — apologies for that, I may be able to help if you need the original…) are all pointing to something I’ve been noticing as we look at the data — for the average child or teacher or adult going about their lives, to what extent is AI completely unique and needing special consideration?
As you can probably infer from my framing, I am leaning towards the idea that people, when asked, have different feelings, find different levels of utility depending upon their individual needs — but that they generally agree that they need help to understand it better and it can’t be on them to make it safe. And in this respect, as individuals see it, it doesn’t feel all that unique. It fits (or doesn’t) into the existing complicated fabric of everyday life. It might help do some things better. It might feel questionable, ethically. It might feel unusuable or a bit dangerous in the long-term. But then, so does other technology, or driving — or even things like drinking alcohol. Individuals — children as well as kids — will make ordinary, daily decisions about using tools in a way that will feel right to them. Again, not a new problem: it comes back to ensuring the educational, policy and regulatory spheres are agile enough to match up, fast.
📰 Three things worth your attention
1. How kids feel about AI, in their own words — MIT Technology Review
Anyway magazine went straight to the source: kids and teens aged 10 to 18, in their own words, on how AI actually fits into their lives. Winter, 17, says AI “isn’t the solution to our problems” and worries it will end creativity and critical thinking. Danielle, 18, uses Claude for programming outside school but thinks AI-generated code is currently “sloppy” and not worth the correction time. Hazel, 17, is angry about the water and heat cost of the data centres behind it and has simply opted out. Evelyn, 13, credits AI in her insulin pump with letting her sleep through the night for the first time since her diagnosis.
Also in the article: Pew found 57% of teens use chatbots to search for information, 54% for schoolwork, 47% for fun, and only 12% for emotional support. Most AI use by kids is mundane. The piece argues, rightly I think, that the danger some of these kids describe (unfiltered content, leaning on a chatbot instead of their own judgment, trusting a wrong answer) is a reason to teach the thing properly, not to avoid it.
A finding that I was delighted to see reported: several kids said adults could learn from them, not the other way round. Most wanted to keep their own hands on the wheel. Not a surprise, but necessary to be heard.
2. Why do kids use AI chatbots for emotional support? This Stanford researcher asked them. — Transparency Coalition
This is a report on a pre-print about some research based on interviews with 48 teens and young adults aged 14 to 22 about why they turn to chatbots for emotional support and what they think the risks are.
The respondents chose AI because it’s available and feels less judgmental than a person. But they were aware of the cost. They named dependency, sycophancy, worse human relationships, and data privacy as real risks, unprompted. “I don’t want to get emotionally attached,” one said. “If the servers shut down, I’m just out of luck.” Another: “I’m becoming so reliant on it to the point where it’s kind of unhealthy… I’m really trying to stray away from AI into my human connections.”
Their own recommendations were specific: chatbots that push back rather than agree, that are designed for young people rather than adapted from adult products, and that involve young people directly in that design and in governance.
3. A Principal and a Student Reviewed the New ChatGPT for Teens. They Had Plenty to Say — EdSurge
OpenAI launched ChatGPT for Teens on August 18 for users aged 13 to 17, with Study Mode, homework-shortcut detection, quizzes, and parent-set Study Hours. EdSurge put the actual product in front of two real users: an elementary school principal, and an 11th grader.
The principal tested it by posing as a 15-year-old asking how to make money quickly, and got steered toward babysitting and odd jobs with warnings against anything illegal. She liked that a request for an “Of Mice and Men” study guide got redirected into questions about character relationships rather than a list of facts to memorise. But she’s not convinced: “Worksheets don’t teach. Teachers do.” But that’s fair — this should be considered a worksheet, not a teacher. She also noted that the tool puts parents and teachers at a disadvantage against native teen users by default.
The student liked it for a genuinely practical reason: nobody in her family speaks Spanish, so Study Mode gives her something to practise with that she otherwise wouldn’t have. Her complaint was technical, not philosophical: in long conversations, the tool forgets the teaching style she asked for at the start.
What’s notable is that neither of them landed on a clean verdict: some good stuff, some not so much. Essentially: it depends who’s using it, and for what.
🔁 ICYMI
Students Created a National AI Policy Framework — Education Week
98 high school students, representing all 50 US states, spent three days in Boston in July writing a national (US) policy framework that they think makes sense.
The result, “The STUDENTS FIRST Act,” prioritises AI literacy for everyone (students, teachers, parents, administrators), protects the learning process rather than banning tools outright, and preserves a right for both students and teachers to refuse AI use altogether. Teachers can’t use AI as the sole basis for a grade. Students get a way to appeal accusations of AI misuse. Districts have to consult their whole community before writing policy, and revisit it yearly.
The students were candid about what they left out. Funding never came up in their debates, and few school districts have the money or time to run the literacy training the framework calls for. As one participant put it, the point wasn’t a finished policy, it was proof that “kids were able to find some consensus” adults so far haven’t.
🔬 What’s new with CAISE
We’re slowly getting back into the school year; annual report with the British Academy filed, but a lot of annual leave to use up!
→ What are you seeing in your school, your research, or your own use of AI this week?
Let me know, or share this with someone who is trying to figure it out.