Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

AI Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied

Opinion

AI Progress Delayed Is Progress Denied
Students in a college classroom.
Getty Images, Klaus Vedfelt

Earlier this summer, I recorded an episode of the Scaling Laws podcast with MacKenzie Price, founder of Alpha Schools—schools “where kids crush academics in two hours, build life skills through workshops, and thrive beyond the classroom.” The secret is AI, but likely not the sort of AI that comes to mind.

Students at Alpha Schools work with “adaptive AI” that allows 1:1 learning at the pace necessary to master a subject, moving at the speed of the student’s learning rather than that of the entire class. By relying on AI to set that tempo, the school shaves hours off the traditional classroom model and reallocates that time to activities that allow students to more fully explore their interests, from horseback riding to documentary filmmaking.


This approach also offers far more individualized communication between Alpha’s teachers, or “guides,” and students. Price asserted that guides and students have around two dozen 1:1 meetings over the course of the year. In contrast, she flagged that teachers in traditional classrooms spend an aggregate of a few minutes with each student over the course of a year.

If all of this sounds too good to be true, Price has the evidence to make the case for her approach. She can easily list all the universities that Alpha graduates are headed off to and can quickly share how students have managed incredible knowledge gains in a short amount of time. If pressed, Price will let you know they have troves of empirical data on student success because Alpha is serious about the importance of using data to continually improve their adaptive AI system.

Alpha is available to students in Austin, Miami, and, soon, even more communities. Of course, access to such an innovative and controversial model comes at a price. It’s about $40,000 per year to attend an Alpha School. Unsurprisingly, that price point leaves a lot of families stuck with the traditional model.

Most schools operate as if it were 1975, rather than 2025. Our students are stuck in institutions built in bygone eras and trapped in pedagogical practices that aimed to train reliable factory workers rather than the interdisciplinary and thoughtful leaders we need in the age of AI.

I’m the “fun uncle” or “funcle” to several nieces and nephews. When I catch up with my friends about how these youngsters are doing, I hear about students struggling to get the attention they need to make reliable progress. For instance, my nephew Tommy (not his real name) recently struggled through a math lesson on fractions. Tommy’s teacher, managing 28 other students, had maybe 30 seconds to spend with him before moving on. Tommy fell further behind, his confusion deepening with each passing day.

Meanwhile, on a tablet in the school's unused computer lab, an AI tutor akin to the one used at Alpha sat dormant—one capable of detecting exactly where Tommy’s understanding broke down, adjusting its approach in real-time, and working with him until the concept clicked. The technology to give Tommy what wealthy families have always bought their children—personalized, patient, adaptive instruction—was right there. But school policies, procurement red tape, and institutional inertia kept it locked away.

This scene plays out millions of times daily across America, and it represents something more troubling than inefficiency. We're not just failing to help Tommy learn about improper fractions as well as we could; we're actively choosing to let him struggle when we know exactly how to help him succeed. And Tommy isn't alone. Across education, healthcare, and justice, we're systematically denying ourselves the transformative benefits of artificial intelligence by clinging to institutions designed for a world that no longer exists.

In a few years, it's likely that Tommy's school and schools just like his will get access to a generic version of Alpha's AI tool. Some will say that's soon enough—after all, we cannot expect all schools to overhaul their systems to look more like Alpha's. I say that's a load of hooey. Our charge is to give our students and all future generations the tools required to thrive today and for all foreseeable tomorrows. State education departments spend tens of thousands of dollars per year on each student. Those funds should not continue to subsidize a flawed and antiquated approach to education. As large enterprises, school districts are in a position to bargain with AI companies for discounted tools. They also have the means to train teachers and demand the adoption of new tools.

Will such a change be easy? No. But it is not optional. Progress delayed is progress denied. Each day that Tommy and others are stuck in classrooms of the past, they are missing out on new knowledge and the opportunities afforded by that knowledge.

Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and Author of the Appleseed AI substack.

Read More

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links
Facebook launches voting resource tool
Facebook launches voting resource tool

Meta Undermining Trust but Verify through Paid Links

Facebook is testing limits on shared external links, which would become a paid feature through their Meta Verified program, which costs $14.99 per month.

This change solidifies that verification badges are now meaningless signifiers. Yet it wasn’t always so; the verified internet was built to support participation and trust. Beginning with Twitter’s verification program launched in 2009, a checkmark next to a username indicated that an account had been verified to represent a notable person or official account for a business. We could believe that an elected official or a brand name was who they said they were online. When Twitter Blue, and later X Premium, began to support paid blue checkmarks in November of 2022, the visual identification of verification became deceptive. Think Fake Eli Lilly accounts posting about free insulin and impersonation accounts for Elon Musk himself.

This week’s move by Meta echoes changes at Twitter/X, despite the significant evidence that it leaves information quality and user experience in a worse place than before. Despite what Facebook says, all this tells anyone is that you paid.

Keep ReadingShow less
artificial intelligence

Rather than blame AI for young Americans struggling to find work, we need to build: build new educational institutions, new retraining and upskilling programs, and, most importantly, new firms.

Surasak Suwanmake/Getty Images

Blame AI or Build With AI? Only One Approach Creates Jobs

We’re failing young Americans. Many of them are struggling to find work. Unemployment among 16- to 24-year-olds topped 10.5% in August. Even among those who do find a job, many of them are settling for lower-paying roles. More than 50% of college grads are underemployed. To make matters worse, the path forward to a more stable, lucrative career is seemingly up in the air. High school grads in their twenties find jobs at nearly the same rate as those with four-year degrees.

We have two options: blame or build. The first involves blaming AI, as if this new technology is entirely to blame for the current economic malaise facing Gen Z. This course of action involves slowing or even stopping AI adoption. For example, there’s so-called robot taxes. The thinking goes that by placing financial penalties on firms that lean into AI, there will be more roles left to Gen Z and workers in general. Then there’s the idea of banning or limiting the use of AI in hiring and firing decisions. Applicants who have struggled to find work suggest that increased use of AI may be partially at fault. Others have called for providing workers with a greater say in whether and to what extent their firm uses AI. This may help firms find ways to integrate AI in a way that augments workers rather than replace them.

Keep ReadingShow less
Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

A visual representation of deep fake and disinformation concepts, featuring various related keywords in green on a dark background, symbolizing the spread of false information and the impact of artificial intelligence.

Getty Images

Parv Mehta Is Leading the Fight Against AI Misinformation

At a moment when the country is grappling with the civic consequences of rapidly advancing technology, Parv Mehta stands out as one of the most forward‑thinking young leaders of his generation. Recognized as one of the 500 Gen Zers named to the 2025 Carnegie Young Leaders for Civic Preparedness cohort, Mehta represents the kind of grounded, community‑rooted innovator the program was designed to elevate.

A high school student from Washington state, Parv has emerged as a leading youth voice on the dangers of artificial intelligence and deepfakes. He recognized early that his generation would inherit a world where misinformation spreads faster than truth—and where young people are often the most vulnerable targets. Motivated by years of computer science classes and a growing awareness of AI’s risks, he launched a project to educate students across Washington about deepfake technology, media literacy, and digital safety.

Keep ReadingShow less
child holding smartphone

As Australia bans social media for kids under 16, U.S. parents face a harder truth: online safety isn’t an individual choice; it’s a collective responsibility.

Getty Images/Keiko Iwabuchi

Parents Must Quit Infighting to Keep Kids Safe Online

Last week, Australia’s social media ban for children under age 16 officially took effect. It remains to be seen how this law will shape families' behavior; however, it’s at least a stand against the tech takeover of childhood. Here in the U.S., however, we're in a different boat — a consensus on what's best for kids feels much harder to come by among both lawmakers and parents.

In order to make true progress on this issue, we must resist the fallacy of parental individualism – that what you choose for your own child is up to you alone. That it’s a personal, or family, decision to allow smartphones, or certain apps, or social media. But it’s not a personal decision. The choice you make for your family and your kids affects them and their friends, their friends' siblings, their classmates, and so on. If there is no general consensus around parenting decisions when it comes to tech, all kids are affected.

Keep ReadingShow less