AI and School: Illusion of Knowledge, Loss of Learning

The Illusion of Instant Learning

Artificial intelligence, with its ability to provide quick and accurate answers, seems to be redefining the educational landscape. Available 24/7, it offers immediate solutions in the student's language, without judgment. However, this apparent superiority conceals a more complex reality.

I have long thought that school was outdated. Imagine: thirty students in a room, one adult speaking, rigid schedules, and curricula unchanged for years. In contrast, an AI ready to answer any question in three seconds. The contrast is striking, but AI does not replace school as easily as it seems. It is not that AI is ineffective, but rather that the question posed was incorrect.

The Confusion Between Tool and Path

Everyone focuses on the tool but forgets the path. School imparts knowledge in mathematics, history, French, biology, where AI excels. In France, 85% of high school students already use AI for their homework, and in the United States, this figure has doubled in a year, reaching 54% according to the Pew Research Center. However, learning is a process of transformation, a path that AI cannot replicate.

The Paradox of the Question

If AI were to become the teacher, the quality of education would depend on the student's ability to ask the right questions. A bright student would receive precise answers, while a struggling student would get vague responses. Unlike a human teacher, AI cannot adjust its approach based on the emotional and cognitive needs of the student.

A bright student, equipped with a rich vocabulary and structured thinking, will formulate a precise question. They will receive a nuanced, tailored answer. A struggling student, who does not yet know how to ask the right question — because that is precisely what they came to learn — will formulate a vague question. They will receive a vague answer.

The Classroom Dynamic

A 12-year-old student faced with a fractions problem may express their confusion through a poorly formulated question. A human teacher recognizes the signs of distress and adapts their teaching accordingly, something AI cannot do.

Faced with AI, this question produces a correct, generic, and useless answer. AI has not seen that the student has been confusing numerator and denominator for three weeks. It has not seen that they have tears in their eyes. It has not seen that they lowered their head a fraction of a second before asking the question — the silent signal that any experienced teacher immediately recognizes as shame, not misunderstanding.

The Importance of the Teacher-Student Relationship

Research conducted by John Hattie shows that the teacher-student relationship is crucial for academic success, with a significant impact on student progress. Despite its ability to simulate empathy, AI cannot replace this human presence.

John Hattie has synthesized over 800 meta-analyses on what makes students succeed. The teacher-student relationship ranks among the most powerful levers — with an effect size of 0.52 to 0.72, well above the threshold corresponding to a year of normal progress. This relationship is not merely about the transmission of knowledge. It relies on something that AI simulates but does not possess: presence.

School as a Place for Human Development

School teaches much more than academic skills. It is a place for social and emotional learning, where students learn to fail, negotiate, and cooperate. Philippe Meirieu emphasizes that AI satisfies the desire for knowledge but extinguishes the desire to learn.

A child spends seven hours a day at school. Often more awake time with their teachers than with their parents. This time is not solely for learning fractions or the French Revolution. It serves to learn to fail in front of others — and to try again. It serves to learn to negotiate with peers who do not think like you. It serves to learn to endure an authority you did not choose. It serves to learn to cooperate, to persuade, to lose, to win. It serves to build — in friction, disagreement, and sometimes boredom — what psychologists call emotional regulation.

The Dangers of Education Without Friction

AI promises an education without failure, but it is precisely the mistake that fuels learning. An imperfect teacher teaches that error is part of the learning process, a lesson that AI cannot offer.

Everyone wants to eliminate friction for others. And AI seems to solve that. It does not judge. It does not get tired. It does not make you wait. It does not fail — at least when it is well-trained. This is exactly where the trap lies. Failure is not a flaw of school. It is its main mechanism. We do not learn because we received the right answer. We learn because we produced the wrong one — and understood why. The mistake is not an obstacle to learning. It is its fuel.

Cognitive Debt

In 2025, the MIT Media Lab found that students using ChatGPT had lower neural connectivity. This "cognitive debt" highlights the importance of desirable difficulties in learning, a concept developed by Robert Bjork.

In 2025, researchers at the MIT Media Lab measured brain activity in three groups of students: those writing an essay with ChatGPT, those using a search engine, and those working without technological assistance. The result: the ChatGPT group exhibited the lowest neural connectivity. These students struggled to recall, just minutes later, the content of the essay they had just produced. Researchers refer to this as "cognitive debt" — a borrowing against the capacity to think that will need to be repaid.

Reevaluating the Role of School

School has never been solely a place for the transmission of knowledge. It has survived numerous technological revolutions because it develops essential human skills. The question is not whether AI can replace teachers, but rather what the true role of school is in shaping individuals.

I return to my conviction from two years ago. The one that told me AI would render school obsolete. What I did not see is that school has never primarily been a place for the transmission of knowledge. Libraries have existed for that for centuries. The printing press made knowledge accessible to all five hundred years ago. The internet universalized it thirty years ago.

School has survived each of these revolutions. Not out of inertia. Because it does something that none of these tools do: it compels human beings to develop together.

So the real question is not: "Can AI replace the teacher?"

The real question is: "What do we decide that school should do?"

If school is to transmit information — AI wins, and the debate is over.

If school is to train humans capable of thinking, cooperating, resisting ease, failing, and trying again — then AI is not a solution. It is a temptation.

And yielding to that temptation is not modernizing education. It is abandoning its ambition.