• “AI should serve as a scaffold for cognitive construction rather than a substitute.”
• “...the teacher’s role is shifting from knowledge transmission to instructional design and behavioral facilitation… Teachers must develop digital literacy and data fluency while acting as safeguards against over‑automation, ensuring that human judgment and educational values mediate AI adoption.”
• “...while AI offers efficiency and feedback advantages, traditional teaching remains essential for tasks requiring cultural interpretation, discourse depth, and emotional connection. A blended model—AI for repetitive or procedural tasks and teachers for critical discourse—appears most effective.”

This study explicitly does not advocate for replacing teachers with AI, and repeatedly cautions against doing so

This is for college students (aka students educated enough to learn on their own already), reads like a promotion for AI, has a limited sample size and does not translate to school kids at all and from the study itself:

Finally, the study’s limitations include its single-institution sample, short duration, and reliance on proxy behavioral indicators. Ethical concerns around informed consent, data privacy, and AI dependency also warrant closer attention. Future research should pursue longer-term and cross-institutional designs, employ multimodal behavioral measures, and develop governance frameworks that align technical gains with equity, autonomy, and critical capacity.

This “”study”” seems to spend more time opining on AI learning frameworks than actually measuring scores on standardised testing and only dedicates a minimal amount of the paper to the results. It also states in paper that higher achieving college students saw less benefits (poorer performing student, AI can bump your grades enough to be noticeable for a unit/pass an exam).

Did you read this study or google something in order to provide a study? This study does not support the claim that “these kids will perform traditional learning by miles”.